Objectivism is Structurally Weak

Thanks, Glenn.

:-)

Ed

Post 21

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 1:43pm

Ed,

Amusing dialog, but I think it missed the mark. This really isn't logical positivism.

As mentioned in my previous posts, I'm not comparing Objectivism to anything, neither calculus nor geometry.

I'm not saying Objectivism's logical strength depends on whether we can deduce things from it. That's not what logical strength deals with.

And just to be sure, I'm *not* saying Objectivism is illogical, bad or inadequate in any way. I'm focusing just on one aspect of Objectivism. Focusing is useful and should not imply any sort of context-dropping! We just have to remember to keep in mind the forest when checking out the trees. Per the car analogy -- all I'm really saying here is that Objectivism has a lot of moving parts, which makes it fragile. Indeed, some of the most beautiful and splendid things in the world are fragile.

Jordan

Post 22

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 5:21pm

Jordan,

Fragile compared to what?

Ed

Post 23

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 8:59pm

Ed,

I'm not sure you caught my post #13 to Laure, who posed nearly the same question that you just did.

Fragility here is not being compared to anything. It's measured on an absolute scale: A 1-link chain is the least fragile, 2 links is more fragile, 3 is more, etc. And 1 chain to the conclusion is more fragile than 2, is more fragile than 3, etc. -- all in terms of logical strength, and nothing else.

Jordan

Post 24

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 9:18pm

Jordan, fragile or weak have negative connotations. If you're not comparing it to anything, then what is the point of classifying Objectivism as "weak"?

I am not convinced that "logical strength" is a valid concept. Something with a long logical chain may be less intuitively obvious, but is that bad? I'm sure the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is a really long chain, but if it's correct, why call it "weak"? If you think a particular link in Objectivism is broken, why not bring it up and we'll discuss it? If you think there are ways we could develop some parallel chains -- different valid ways of reaching the same conclusions -- let's hear them.

Also, if we think about your chain analogy... a chain's usefulness is generally related to its length, is it not? You can't do much with a 1-link chain. Why not say Objectivism is Useful, then? ;-)

Post 25

Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 10:43pm

Well said, Laure!

Jordan,

But this really is logical positivism (i.e., manipulating language to create constructs which have mere percentages of probability; whether we consider it "value-neutral" or not).

Ed

Post 26

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 12:34am

Here are some simple examples of why the "few chains = weak" and the "long chains = weak" arguments are flawed.

A particular function in an vehicle (multiple components each made of multiple parts) might have a weakness that is best addressed by replacing component A with a component made of an even greater number of parts (longer chain).

Modern cars have far more parts than those of 100 years ago, yet which is the most functional, most durable, and strongest? Every single chain of parts in a given automobile function has grown in length and become stronger at the same time.

An opponent might say, but I mean, all thing being equal, that is if each element in a chain is presumed to be as weak as another, then having two instead of 1, multiplies the weakness by two. But if it made any sense to talk of some kind of generic link with a measure of 'x' amount of weakness, then the threshold for breaking any of the chain's links reaches 'x' for all links at the same time and it wouldn't matter if there was only one instead of 100. The fact is that this generalization isn't valid at its root since it 'steals' the concept of weakness from somewhere specific and applies it in general.

And having lots of chains is clearly only needed in proportion to the risk of a single chain failing. We only have multiple theories of something, when our logic or evidence leaves us with multiple possibilities which can't all be true. Once we have adduced the risk of a given theory being wrong as insignificant to the thrust of the argument, we drop it. Example, "Ether Bob has already left and we don't need to call him, or he hasn't left yet so we should call him to let him know he should leave now." Once we get more evidence, we drop one of the theories (unnecessary chain). "Bob's car is still in his parking spot, so go ahead and call him.")

In a sail boat, you have trade-offs that can be mathematically be computed. Too much strength built into the hull and rig (i.e., more than expected conditions require), means more weight which means more sail area for power, which means more effort to make changes, which increases dangers that arise from handling the boat, etc. In this example, adding more chains (extra strength things - like doubling up on the hull thickness or the number of mast-supporting lines) beyond where they are required, result in more weakness (danger from a boat that is harder to handle due to greater sail area). Understanding the underlying context allows one to see bell-curves for optimal strength and not a simplistic linear generalization that would be all wrong.

The little analogy of chains has another problem. It presumes that the break is "in" a link rather than a poorly formed "linking" that doesn't properly match up with the link ahead of or behind it. Integration is the forming of a link to ensure it fits to the other links and in doing so helps expose any weakness in the link itself. To not integrate would create no chain because the links would be lying about separately and not connected to one another (does kind of sound like modern philosophy doesn't it?) Also, integration of knowledge is more like a 3-d collection of chains where links go in multiple directions - i.e., to links in other chains as well as to the links in the existing chain.

As to fundamentalism making for super long chains - the alternative is, again, having super short chains - just links actually and don't connect anything at the fundamental level - let them just sort of float that way there isn't a fundamental level weakness (Gee, just like modern philosophy again). Because the universe is made of connected pieces our knowledge has to be connectible. Because knowledge is hierarchical there is a foundation - best connect to it.

Jordan says, "Weak doesn�t mean wrong or worse, just vulnerable and precarious." Vulnerable to what? My arguments are 'vulnerable' to good arguments that contradict something I've said - that is the opportunity for us to learn - which is a source of strength. 'Vulnerable' to lots of bad arguments? Integration and fundamentalism are the proofs against bad arguments. "Precarious" is about things that are awkwardly stacked one on top of another without adequate foundation (fundamentalism) or properly integrated to one another (stops that pesky wobbling).

"Weak" has to have a context. My heart is weak compared to an elephants in liters pumped per unit of time, but not in the context of what I need. To be structurally weak in the context of a philosophy of how to live one's life, where strength means greater confidence, fewer errors, broader and deeper knowledge, and more successes and happiness... well, in that context, "weak" IS wrong or worse.

Post 27

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 8:01am

Steve,

=========
But if it made any sense to talk of some kind of generic link with a measure of 'x' amount of weakness, then the threshold for breaking any of the chain's links reaches 'x' for all links at the same time and it wouldn't matter if there was only one instead of 100. The fact is that this generalization isn't valid at its root since it 'steals' the concept of weakness from somewhere specific and applies it in general.
=========

Good point. Jordan says the weakness concept comes from an "absolute" standard -- which is not even adequately defined. In this "absolute" sense, the links in the chain are the same (as you say above) and the raw number of links is supposed to measure the level of "generic weakness."

As I said above, it is about the manipulation of language to create constructs with mere possibilities of probability (i.e., logical positivism).

Ed

Post 28

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 10:15am

Ed,

"...manipulation of language to create constructs with mere possibilities of probability..."

Well put.

Post 29

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 10:36am

Laure,

I didn't pick the term "weak." That's just what people call it. I agree that it gives rise to negative connotaion. No, I don't think being less intuitively obvious is necessarily bad. I'm not sure what the relationship of chain length to being intuitively obvious has to do with this thread. I've already said repeatedly that inductive arguments here are disanalogous to math proofs, including Fermat's Theorem. To my understanding, math and deduction are not subject to evaluations of logical strength, probably because the truth values of the propositions are irrelevant in those fields. And I don't see what chain length has to do with utility either.

Ed,

I never said anything about percentage or probability. That's not even what logical positivism is really about. And simply focusing on one aspect of an argument does not implicate me in a logical positivism crime ring. I'm clean, darn it! Oh, and do you really not understand the absolute scale concept? It's really pretty straight forward.

Steve,

I agree that the analogies are limited. Your examples show that well. I wouldn't get too carried away with them. The strength issues in logic are far more simple than the strength issues in your analogies.

"Vulnerable" just refers to the many more possible points of attack that one might wind up having to deal with and defend. Sure, the attacks might be lousy, but that won't stop the onslaught. It's usually far easier to defend the short and many chained arguments. Otherwise, it's more like herding cats.

Jordan

Post 30

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 6:30pm

Jordan,

I never said anything about percentage or probability.

Yes you did, you implied them with the following statements:

I'm talking about the strength -- not validity -- of inductive arguments.

... which means the probability that the inductive arguments really do hold up in the real world.

The more links there are in the chain, the more likely it is that one will break.

... which is an assessment based on a scale of probabilities (that one link out of many will break).

I'm just focusing on one particular feature of an argument, one which doesn't speak to an argument's truth, just to its potential vulnerabilities.

... which is another way of talking about the probability of a rebuttal.

Oh, and do you really not understand the absolute scale concept? It's really pretty straight forward.

It's your application of the absolute scale that I question (see eccentric, mock dialogue for details).

Ed

Post 31

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 8:15pm

Ed,

Oh, you mean I'm appealing to this "probability" of which you speak when I say that more links make a chain more likely to break, ceteris paribus, and more chains make a conclusion more likely to stick? If so, then okay. Guilty as charged! If you're saying anything else, I've lost ya.

I still don't understand your objection to my use of an absolute scale. The mock dialog is unilluminating in this regard. Might not matter enough to belabor.

But perhaps it will help to mention the solutions to any logically "weak" arguments. First, find shorter (good) routes to the conclusion. Second, find more (good) routes to the conclusion. Who will object to this? Seems rather plain to me. Sure, sometimes those solutions aren't possible, so we have to deal with the consequences, but often they are!

To ramble on a bit, there are some cool Objectivist-friendly ways to chop down on the chain length. One is to use casuistic reasoning. Another is to play with reductio ad absurdum. Another is simply to stipulate commonly agreeable terms as a base point. To be sure, Objectivist uses most if not all of these. I'm just suggesting that where it does not, perhaps it could.

Similarly, there're some cool Objectivist-friendly ways to build up new independent chains toward the ol' conclusions. Pick a new field and argue from it to those conclusions. Nathanial Brandon did this well for a number of O'ist conclusions by using psychology rather than philosophy as a separate means of justification. Pick economics, law, sociology, ecology, whatever. The more legs we put under the Objectivist tower, the better it will stand! And again, Objectivism does do this fairly well, but I say -- the more the better.

I think Objectivism in particular would benefit from this, because like I said, rather than building shorter chains, it concentrates on building them down to fundamentals (the self-evident). And rather than building more independent chains, it just interlinks a bunch of the ol' chains together.

Jordan

Post 32

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 8:37pm

Jordan,

You say, "The strength issues in logic are far more simple than the strength issues in your analogies."

What I wanted to point out was that as you used the word "weak" with no context (other than referring to Objectivist Philosophy's structure), and that necessarily put you in error.

---------Length of Chains------

Your use creates an equivocation. "Weak" is "Weak Logically" - that much context we do have. And the subject is an aspect of the structure of Objectivism. So, we would be looking at some element(s) of Objectivism for logical weakness in comparison to similar element(s) of another philosophy? - No, we are saying "weak" in general because of 'principle' of logic that relates to chain length.

But that prinicple of logic requires the condition 'all else remaining equal' in order to go on and say that it is the number of elements put together as links that create the weakness. That would be for an absolute scale (but it still can NOT escape the need for a context, so it has to presume an standard strength for the links). And the word "weak" will still have no meaning until it is part of some kind of comparison.

You argument would be right if we could put together a sameness in the elements (absloutely the same or statistically close to the same), then we can say that more of these elements linked in a chain means more weakness.

The proof in this is to simply imagine two different theories about the same phenomena. Make one of them a fairly long chain, but one that is rigorously thought out, empirically tested, etc. and the other theory is a fairly short (few links) explanation of the same phenomena but clearly with some badly damaged links.

That makes it obvious that the chain-length relation to logical strength REQUIRES homogeneous links - where the weakness of the links is reasonably well know.

And "weak" and "strong" are relative terms - one can be asked, "weaker than what?" One cannot say, "It is weaker," without a context, like a previous sentence that says what it is weaker than (e.g., Weaker than before, weaker that it needs to be, weaker than the others, etc.)

Implied in your article is one of two answers, "Weaker than it needs to be" - meaning that it could/should be changed in structure to be stronger. But that would carry a burden of proof. One would have to show that it would be reasonable to imagine Objectivist conclusions could be reached with a shorter chain. Or "Weaker than other philosophies." And with this last, you would have to demonstrate that the links in Objectivism were comparable to the links in that other philosophy before you could make the point that Objectivism's structure (longer chains) made it weaker.

----------Number of chains----------

I could make a point, let's keep it symbolic - Point A. Let's say I make a very strong, tight, complete, and consistent argument in a very short form. But because I'm nervous, I start making lots more arguments intending to be separate chains to the same point. I provide one after another and some are not well made.

The "chain" analogy doesn't work here, because the attackers will ignore that one strong argument (chain) and attack the weak ones. So, having multiple chains is not making for strength. At least not rhetorically. But we still lack in context - because it would depend upon the setting. I could put all of that in a book and it would be more likely that the strong argument would need to be addressed or it would leave attackers vulnerable.

In any case, this argument of 'many chains means more strength' fails unless given an adequate context there is a given strength to an average chain.

-----------------------

Many, many years ago a group of leading psychologists were sitting in a red-wood hot tub in Big Sur, relaxing after a day of lecturing at a psychology conference. The subject that came up was, "how does a person convey a sense of authority?" One by one each of these learned experts spoke at length on what a person said, how they said it, or how did they behave like to transmit a sense of authority. It came to the famous, child psychologist, Haim Ginott's turn to speak. He took the cigar out of his mouth and said, "Authority is brief."

He certainly left very few links to attack, but the strength has to come from the link's content FIRST, before one starts counting them. He could have said something stupid, like "Authority is whatever."

Post 33

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 9:10pm

Jordan, you have not refuted and cannot refute one of these criticisms:

The assertion is arbitrary. No actual weaknesses are posited, just a general claim that arguments are weak. It is self refuting. The claim itself is week, for the same reason - it is a chain.

The claim is contradictory. A chain cannot be made weak by being both long and not long. And since it only takes one link to be broken, the fact that there are fewer links in a shorter chain doesn't mean there are fewer links needed to be broken. Only one link needs to be broken.

Post 34

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 10:25pm

Steve,

"Weak" is just what people call it. I didn't pick the term. It pertains just to a specific aspect of an argument. You're reading the equivocation into it. There's none there. Your asking for what I'm comparing "weak" to indicates that you don't understand the absolute scale. Why is it so difficult to understand that 2 chains is stronger than 3 is stronger than 4? That 2 links is stronger than 3 is stronger than 4? It's just like saying 100 degrees celsius is hotter than 99 is hotter than 98, is hotter than 97. Or 10 feet is taller than 9 is taller than 8. Please read on...

You argument would be right if we could put together a sameness in the elements (absloutely the same or statistically close to the same), then we can say that more of these elements linked in a chain means more weakness.

You would be right if I were trying evaluate the weakness of the whole of the argument, as opposed to just one aspect of it. If I were trying to evaluate the whole of the argument based just on this one element, then sure, we'd need to have a sameness in the rest of the elements. But again, I'm just evaluating this one aspect. Saying I have to evaluate everything to evaluate this one thing is to unfocus the analysis and to smuggle in a bunch of other elements into the discussion in the name of context. It is to package deal and arrest knowledge.

Ted,

I've addressed most of your points throughout this thread. I'll explicate:

The assertion is arbitrary.

Wrong. It's abstract, not arbitrary. I pointed to integration and fundamentals as indicative of long and fewer chains. And the evaluation is measured on an absolute scale, whicoh is anything but arbitrary.

The claim itself is week, for the same reason - it is a chain.

I addressed this in my post #17:

JORDAN: And indeed, as my observations here are inductive, they are subject to the same weak/strong evaluation I'm discussing here. I'm not attacking induction (and yes, Hume did), rather just pointing out a feature of it that is subject to a weak/strong evaluation, then applying that evaluation to Objectivism. (This is what I was relaying to Ted.)

. . . .

TED: A chain cannot be made weak by being both long and not long.

Agreed! I never implied otherwise. Chains are "weak" in this particular aspect only if they are long. They might well be "strong" in other ways, i.e., falsifiable, intuitive, predictive, technologically useful etc. Those aspects are not being discussed here. They are irrelevant for purposes of this thread! Focus!

And since it only takes one link to be broken, the fact that there are fewer links in a shorter chain doesn't mean there are fewer links needed to be broken. Only one link needs to be broken.

Just because someone attacks a link doesn't mean the argument "breaks." It just means the argument is under attack. More links means more possible points of attack. And again, other things being equal, the more actual attacks, the more of a pain it is defend the argument.

Jordan

Post 35

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 1:10am

Jordan,

You said, "Weak" is just what people call it. I didn't pick the term.

Actually, you did pick the term: You titled this thread, "Objectivism is Structurally Weak" - you used the adverb "structurally" to modify the kind of "weak" you meant.

If someone has invented some new form of logic or rhetoric and assigned a new or modified meaning to the good old English meaning that "weak" has been carrying around, then it was your job to let us know that.

Here is the Wikipedia definition: The word weak is a generic adjective pertaining to a general state of feebleness, a lack of strength, durability or vigor. Weak is the opposite of strong.

------------

You say, "Why is it so difficult to understand that 2 chains is stronger than 3 is stronger than 4? That 2 links is stronger than 3 is stronger than 4? It's just like saying 100 degrees celsius is hotter than 99 is hotter than 98, is hotter than 97. Or 10 feet is taller than 9 is taller than 8." (I assume you meant "weaker" when referring to links)

Let's drop the chains analogy since that isn't working for us. Let's name what it is that we are talking about: arguments. So, why don't I understand that 2 arguments are stronger than 1...? Because there must be an "all other things considered being equal" clause inserted or it is nonsense. And that clause effectively implies that all arguments are the same in so far as strength - except for their number. And that just plain ain't so. Maybe it is the chain analogy that has left you confused about this fact.

You say, "It's just like saying 100 degrees celsius is hotter than 99 is hotter than 98, is hotter than 97. Or 10 feet is taller than 9 is taller than 8." But here you are specifying the unit which carries its own standard. Celsius is a measurement of heat where the higher the number the greater the heat. That is not so with arguments. And the same goes for the linear distance unit of measure "feet." Now, if you said, 2 arguments is more argumentative than 1 argument, it would be kind of dumb, but it wouldn't commit the error I've been pointing at.

You appeared to have ignored the following argument I made in my last post:

"...imagine two different theories about the same phenomena. Make one of them a fairly long chain, but one that is rigorously thought out, empirically tested, etc. and the other theory is a fairly short (few links) explanation of the same phenomena but clearly with some badly damaged links.

That makes it obvious that the chain-length relation to logical strength REQUIRES homogeneous links - where the weakness of the links is reasonably well know."

Do you see what I'm saying? One argument isn't like another, the way one degree of Celsius is like another. Adding degrees of heat will make it hotter. Adding arguments might or might not make a conclusion stronger or weaker. Depends upon the arguments, and unless you can come up with some scale of argument-worth (like Celsius is a scale of heat) - then you could talk about numbers of links and numbers of chains.

In your reply to Ted, you said, "...other things being equal..." so I know you know what I'm talking about. When it suits your argument you say "other things being equal" when it doesn't suit your argument you say, sameness is not required.

In a post to Ed, describing how to improve Objectivism, you said, "...find shorter (good) routes to the conclusion." This assumes that the logical path from A to B is either not necessary to the overall argument, or that a shorter path could be found - is that your contention? If so, there isn't any evidence offered. And it still takes us back to the use of the word "weak" - your choice. You could have titled this thread, "Directions for making Objectivism structurally stronger."

Post 36

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 11:54am

Steve,

"Weak" is a term of art, like "valid" and "sound." I didn't choose to label the concept with that word. Some nerdy professor from Dartmouth probably started out with this term in his logic or debate or rhetoric textbooks, and people simply followed suit. I do realize I should've picked a different title for this thread. I said as much to Armaos. I blew that! Readily admitted. Now let's put that baby to bed.

And [the "all other things considered being equal"] clause effectively implies that all arguments are the same in so far as strength - except for their number.

That clause simply serves serves to isolate one factor for purposes of focused analysis.

Celsius is a measurement of heat where the higher the number the greater the heat.

Relating back: the higher number of premises, the possible points of attack; and the more possible points of attack, the more possible points of defeat. I'm omitting other measures of an argument here just as I omit other measures of matter like mass or velocity.

And I did address that argument you made in your last post about the two different theories on the same phenomena. Again, I'm focusing just on one measure of an argument. Arguments might well be strong or weak in other ways. On the whole, a longer chain might well indeed be superior to a shorter one. Like I said, there're many ways to measure the merits of an argument: its intuitive appeal, its falsifiability, its correspondence to well grounded facts. Again, I am deliberately omitting those measures from this focused analysis. In essence, I am asking -- much like in the way of your 2-theories-same-phenom-bit -- if all other parts of the argument are equal, then what is the bare bones strength of these arguments just in terms of chain length and number? It's a measure not unlike tensile strength, but for the tensile strength of a series of premises tied to a conclusion. Do you agree that it is valid to isolate and evaluate one aspect of otherwise complex arguments for the sake of focused analysis?

When it suits your argument you say "other things being equal" when it doesn't suit your argument you say, sameness is not required.

That's a rude and misplaced insinuation. I took it for granted that people understood that the focus here entailed a ceteris paribus assumption. I tried to make it clear from early on that I was talking just about this particular aspect of arguments, not arguments in their entirety. I explicated "other things being equal" to highlight this point just to be sure. For purposes of study, sameness of all other aspects is nearly always required when isolating one aspect of an otherwise complicated issue.

This assumes that the logical path from A to B is either not necessary to the overall argument, or that a shorter path could be found - is that your contention? If so, there isn't any evidence offered. And it still takes us back to the use of the word "weak" - your choice.

It's my contention that there might be shorter paths...and more of them. I don't know if there are any hence my lack of evidence. But I'd say they are worth looking for. That's what I do as a lawyer when I'm cleaning up my arguments. I try to keep them short and many. It gives my opponent a much harder time.

Jordan

Post 37

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 1:39pm

Jordan,

I appreciate your acknowledging the need for a better title to the thread. Consider that "put to bed."

It wasn't my intention to be rude - I simply noted that in one of your posts you used the phrase "other things being equal" and in another post you talked about sameness not being required.

Language deserves more respect than it gets and I do NOT understand how some one can be so casual about using a word like "weak" while saying it doesn't mean what it has always meant because a professor at Dartmouth used it some other way. If you want to use it in a different way it is your obligation to make that clear in the beginning.

This is how your argument looks to me: Long arguments or few arguments are weak(?), strength or weakness of an argument is not really about strength or weakness in the normal sense of those words - rather, they are a measure of arguments such that all else remaining equal they can be ranked absolutely by that measure. Objectivism has long arguments and few arguments so it is structurally weak(?), but that does not mean the arguments are weak in the conventional meaning of the word. And, what is 'long' and what is 'few' is said to be made without comparison, and further, while denying that any comparison is implied or required and that this is explained by calling it an absolute scale.

I'm all done with this thread. I can't think of any other ways to say what I'm saying any clearer. We disagree.

Post 38

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 1:50pm

Hi Steve,

Thank you for the wrap up. Your summary is not far off the mark. But okay. I suspect we are at reasonable impasse. Time to toss this thread to the dogs.

Cheers,
Jordan

Post 39

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 9:23am