How compatible are Bayesianism and Objectivism?

Now that I've been convinced that since I use Bayesian methods in an empirical framework, I'm not an Objectivist after all, I'm going to take the good editor Teresa's suggestion to try to confine my discussion of Objectivism to the Dissent board here.

But, to start with, I'm going to try asking the exact opposite question - how many similarities do Bayesianism (at least, the version including the same ethical standard as Objectivism, ie "one's own life") and Objectivism have in common? How easy is it for subscribers of each philosophy to identify shared goals and work together to accomplish them?

Post 1

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 9:01am

Using Bayesian methods as part of your utilitarianism, you have proved in past posts that you justify the sacrifice of some for the greater good, which in most instances has been the health care system of Canada.

Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires�so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal�s lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them. Ayn Rand

You make victim of those who have, for the benefit of those who have not. Those who have not are not victims unless something has been taken from them. Refusing to give to them what belongs to another does not make them a victim.

An organism�s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. AR

Using statistics to determine standards of value denies that the standard is the nature of Man himself qua man. Stastistics do not define "man qua man". His nature defines that. Stastistics may prove more people will live, or live longer, under socialized medicine; the standard of "man qua man" proves that socialized medicine is against the nature of the individual, the center piece of Objectivist metaphysics and ethics.

Your utilitarian ends define altruism, only because the parameters you choose to use lead you to it. Choose other parameters and you might be able to find individualism, instead.

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. AR

The greatest good for the greatest number, the end goal of socialized medicine, holds that doctrine above all else, or you could not claim socialized medicine is ethically best.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice�which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction�which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. AR

So you tell us that we do not have the right to exist without giving you our dime, because "Bayesian methods in an empirical framework" tell you socialized medicine is best. We tell you natural rights are best. You argue. You never say, "Point taken" because you are incapable of accepting Objectivist epistemology. "Bayesian methods in an empirical framework" is the antithesis of Objectivist epistemology, even if I don't know how to do the math--I know how to determine what is "individualistic" and what is "collectivist". All your conclusions so far lead to collectivism.

Post 2

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 9:04am

Daniel,

Lemme' back-track and hammer home the differences first. What makes utilitarianism (and Bayesianism is a form of utilitarianism) different from Objectivism is the relative lack of first principles and final ends.

A first principle might be that actions affect the character of the moral agent -- so that there will be a stop-gap preventing the ends from justifying the means. Utilitarianism will have none of this however -- if the ends are good enough, then any efficient means will do (indeed, the most efficient means will be brought forth).

The final ends have to do with the first principles, so that the ends actually prescribe the right means (rather than having the ends justify a multitude of means). Thus, for humans to live as humans on planet earth, they would have to take stock of the kind of creature that they are and of not just what -- but how -- they are capable.

Forms of utilitarianism -- remaining blind to natural and necessary truths about the facts of reality and how they relate to being a human on earth -- fail miserably in this regard.

Ed

Post 3

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 9:37am

Curtis, Ed,

I think that I would be safe in making the proposition that the both of you are of the opinion that any and all ethical systems which allow for taxation are unethical (at least by your interpretation of Objectivist ethics).

I would like to offer a parallel, for thought: non-Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry has a certain set of axioms, and a variety of conclusions that can be drawn from those axioms, a number of which are quite useful. However, it is also possible to develop various forms of geometry with slightly /different/ axioms, which result in some propositions that are the same, but a number of which are different... and those differences can be useful in learning more about both forms of geometry. A particular geometric proposition, such as 'the interior angles of a triangle add up to a half-circle', isn't true or false in and of itself, but is true or false in the system created by a particular set of axioms. But - and here's the point I'm trying to raise, however poorly I may be doing so - the axioms, themselves, are neither provable or disprovable by the systems derived from those axioms.

Applying the axioms of Objectivism, it is possible to determine whether statements such as "taxation is always evil" are true or false. And, in the other boards on this forum, the axioms of Objectivism are assumed to be true. But, here, I would like to try /comparing/ the Objectivist system and at least one non-Objectivist system, /without/ necessarily assuming that one or the other's set of axioms is 'true'. That is, to try looking at the ethical and political version of non-Euclidean geometry, to see if any useful insights can be raised.

Will it be possible for either of you to try to examine a non-Objectivist form of ethics, and, at least as a thought experiment, or for the sake of argument, analyzing it /without/ automatically making an assumption along the lines that since Objectivism's axioms are true that non-Objectivist axioms are necessarily false and thus non-Objectivist conclusions are also necessarily false? That is, to consider that within the system established another set of axioms, propositions that you normally consider true may be false, and vice-versa? Or would I be able to save everybody's time by summarizing your posts as "Objectivism is true, and according to Objectivism such-and-such is false, therefore such-and-such is false, and you are a stupid troll for even considering otherwise let alone trying to waste our time discussing it."?

Post 4

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 10:14am

Just as I said above, "You never say, "Point taken" because you are incapable of accepting Objectivist epistemology."

You ask: "Will it be possible for either of you to try to examine a non-Objectivist form of ethics..." Yes! Certainly! But I won't. The principles on which Objectivist ethics rests, names its metaphysics and epistemology, are not in question. The means by which such principles as voluntary payment of taxes are to be implemented in law

"is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. Ayn Rand

So I can play thought experiments with you all day long. However, you still continue to trawl. Your net is never full. My net is full. I argue with you only out of some hope that when you, Mr. Boese, visit our Rome, you will think as we Romans do. Instead, you act like an sub-intellectual Barbarian invader who doesn't know he's in Rome. When you begin to think like a Roman, and to say, "Ohhhhhhhhhhh! That's what you mean!", then you will be a Roman.

(Edited by Curtis Edward Clark on 12/31, 10:15am)

Post 5

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 10:57am

Curtis,

It appears that the two of us are here for different purposes. As I said a while ago, I am not here to convert or be converted, but to learn as much as I can, and answer any questions I can. Your response appears to indicate that you think the only reason I should be here is to be converted to Objectivism. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that simply learning enough about Objectivism will be sufficient to convince me of the perfection of the system and adopt it; if this was the case, then reading enough about the Torah, Tanakh, and rabbinical commentaries would be enough to convince anyone to convert to Judaism.

I started this thread by asking a particular question - however, you seem to have chosen, instead, to implicitly avoid the thread's question altogether, and Ed did so explicitly. If you wish to debate those issues, then I would ask that you start a thread focused /on/ those issues, and allow this thread to be used to focus on the main point and the question in its subject line. The portions of your posts which are actually relevant to /this/ thread's question seem to be the answer "They're not," so unless you have anything to add to that, or until someone else wishes to offer a different answer or discuss the issue (and I hope they do), this thread would seem to be complete.

Post 6

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 11:07am

Daniel, you started off this thread with the suggestion that there be a discussion and the exhortation to discuss. Discuss what? Why don't you stop expecting others to do the lifting for you, and present your own case for Bayesianism? State an issue which you think is problematic for Objectivism. State how Bayesianism would address it. Show how Bayesian first principles lead to the specific Bayesian analysis which you find helpful. And show how Objectivism needs these principles. You can't expect people to argue with you if you don't first present an argument.

Post 7

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 11:37am

Daniel,

I happen to think Bayes' theorem is perfectly compatible with Objectivism. In no way does it portend Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, some unprincipled ethics, mixed governance, etc. Bayes' theorem is just a tool we use to make predictions. It works beautifully. There are quibbles about the theorem -- namely, how to correctly assign prior probability -- but these are rather technical quibbles of little to no consequence for Objectivism.

That said, Objectivism might object to various *applications* of Bayes' theorem. Under Objectivism, it would be improper to use it to further Utilitarianism, or Egalitarian, some unprincipled ethics, mixed governance, etc. But that seems to be a trivial point, as Objectivism similarly objects to *anything* being used for those ends.

Like many tools, it can be misused.

Jordan
(Edited by Jordan on 12/31, 2:25pm)

Post 8

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 11:45am

Ted,

That's a very good, and /constructive/, post. :) I'll see if I can do as you suggest.

Let's see... popping over to IOP.com for a moment, one of the first articles that catches my eye is 'trial by jury', which seems as good a spot to start as any.

It seems that at least the form of Bayesianism I currently practice, and the form of Objectivism described there, both agree on the usefulness of having a simple and clear set of standards about what behaviours should be discouraged (in the name of the self-interest of most of the citizens themselves); that is, to have a set of laws. There also seems to be a rough agreement on the necessity of having some final arbiter of those laws (ie, judicial and executive branches). There also seems to be agreement that the legislative branch has, historically, engaged in a number of rights-infringing abuses, and so one useful technique to help limit those abuses is to have some way for the citizens to override bad laws... and one such way to do so is jury nullification.

Juries are also useful as a rough-and-ready way for people who don't understand Bayesian logic to arrive at similar results, in the rather important cases of, er, legal cases, when getting a wrong answer would result in the infringement of an innocent person's rights.

Therefore, it seems in the rational self-interests of both Bayesian empiricists and Objectivists to cooperate in those areas where they agree, to help both of them reach their shared goals. And, therefore, it seems in their rational self-interests to /identify/ their shared goals, so that they /can/ work together on them.

Ted, is that the sort of argument you are looking for from me to put forth and then to expand upon, or have I mis-interpreted your post?

(Edited by Daniel Eliot Boese on 12/31, 11:47am)

Post 9

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 1:37pm

First, except for the fact that I just read the article on Bayes' Theorem at Wikipedia, I have been until now totally ignorant of what "Bayesianism" is. Suffice it to say that in so far as it is a theory of probability, it is simply a branch of math, and so long as it does not rest on any contradictions, it is entirely compatible with Objectivism. Objectivism doesn't rule out a priori the use of any valid tools, althought it might question why one would use a hammer to paint a watercolor or question the point of hammering oneself inside a coffin. I do not have an opinion as to whether Bayesian probability has any internal contradictions. But I am familiar with the drug testing example given in that article, and that example is valid.

The problem is obviously that mathematical theories are formal, not substantive. They don't have content of their own. If one takes false "facts" as givens and attempts to argue about them using a Bayesian analysis, then the conclusions will be false no matter how valid the reasoning.

My suggestion to you, Daniel, is to find some concrete position such as socialized medicine or the like which you think Objectivism has wrong, and explain why you think the Objectivist position is wrong based on the first principles which you hold. Find a concrete difference and relate that difference to a difference in principles.

Finally, my motive in providing these suggestions is not to engage in a debate with you myself. You should address others, or the forum in general, but not me. Your posts remind me of a man struggling as he drowns. I find the sight disturbing, and, so, I am throwing you a life preserver as my boat passes. I myself am not interested in going for a swim.

Post 10

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 2:42pm

Daniel,

Jordan and Ted haven't had the experience I've had with Bayesians -- folks whom I've noted to be like the pragmatists in the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry for pragmatism. One example would be you -- a Bayesian who is a pragmatist. They see Bayes' reasoning rather innocently as "only" math (or "only" a tool). Rationalistically, they are right. That is all that it is ... on paper. In reality, it's been my existential experience that it tends to be a very, very ugly thing -- used in very, very ugly ways.

As Ted suggested, what is needed here is a concrete example.

Understanding what it must be like to be in your shoes (and what is needed to grab the attention of Objectivists), I invite you to consider putting forward a "Bayesian" argument for at least one of the following:

-universal health care
-universal global warming legislation
-universal hepatitis B vaccination
-universal cancer screening
-a military draft
-free tuition to college
-universal housing
-universal food
-universal clothing

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/31, 3:48pm)

Post 11

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 4:03pm

Ed is right about the "ugly" uses of such theories by people who believe it is "only" math. As I said, you use this math "to make victims of those who have, for the benefit of those who have not," specifically speaking of collectivized insurance. Objectivism would not use math, no matter how correct it is, to justify making sacrificial animals of others.

When the math that represents the propositions are based on faulty propositions, the propositional conclusion based on the math will not correspond with objective reality, which is I made a big deal of the "correspondence theory of truth." No mathematical truths can be translated into propositional truths if those propositions are contrary to the sovereignty of the individual. Remember me talking about how we come to the correspondence theory of individual sovereignty?

Your math can't justify taking my sovereignty, because it is unalienable. You can deny me the ability to exercize my sovereignty, but you have to use force to do it. That is why I don't care for your math. It means nothing when the propositions are faulty, and yours are faulty by virtue of the force necessary to deny me my sovereignty.

Post 12

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 4:22pm

Ed,

Given the earlier discussion on health care, I think I have an idea how a discussion about the topics you list would go - an Objectivist would say that taxation is bad, therefore that nothing funded by taxation can be good, therefore all of the items you describe are evilevilevil.

So, how about we try heading into an area of disagreement /other/ than "taxes are bad".

How about the commons, and other forms of property than private? There are certain 'things', for lack of a better word, which are difficult-to-impossible for any individual to claim as their own personal private property and exclude others from using it; but which can be damaged by certain ways of using them, in ways that make them less useful to other people. The atmosphere, available electromagnetic spectrum, useful animals which migrate over large areas (eg, fish). Another useful distinction in some areas of property law is whether a particular good is 'rivalrous' or not - that is, non-rivalrous goods can be used by more than one person at once, while rivalrous goods can only be used by one person at a time. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29 has a handy table.)

According to some Objectivists I have read, some seem to think that the only property law should be that protecting private property, and there should be no regulation of other goods, even knowing ahead of time that such a system would lead to the classic 'tragedy of the commons'. On the other hand, I happen to like breathing air that's not full of soot and sulphur, and even if it infringes upon someone else's right to throw ashes into 'their' air, I'd really like to prevent them from doing so. Therefore, what seems to be in my own rational self-interest seems to infringe upon what has been described to me as the Objectivist conception of absolutely non-infringed property rights (no matter whether such infringement saves lives or not).

Post 13

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 4:26pm

Well, the math is still just math. It is the people and what they do with it who may be ugly. From the topics Ed listed it is clear that it's being used to gussie up arbitrary arguments dropped into mid stream with all sorts of false unstated assumptions. Such as Pascal's wager. This is the sort of nonsense that made me cancel my Scientific American subsrciption when they started publishing articles about the "scientific" superiority of socialist programs, tax supported birth control and unilateral disarmament. They ignored the validity of the concept of property and the volitional nature of man and acted as if wealth redistribution were being done between inanimate interchangeable empty boxes, not moral agents.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/31, 7:18pm)

Post 14

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 7:07pm

Daniel,

According to some Objectivists I have read, some seem to think that the only property law should be that protecting private property, and there should be no regulation of other goods, even knowing ahead of time that such a system would lead to the classic 'tragedy of the commons'.

Is this 'Objectivist' material available to view? Can you provide an example?

Ed

Post 15

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 7:26pm

Ed,

It may be a bit tricky finding my original reference, after this length of time, but I'll see if I can Google something up.

...

The first useful hit from Googling 'objectivism commons' is http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=3827&st=0 , in which post #2 finishes with, "Since fish in the ocean are not anyone's property, the relative scarcity or abundance of any particular species is none of the government's business.", and further posters to that thread offer similar points of view. If it's that easy to find the first few examples, then it seems a safe enough assumption that it's at least a common POV of Objectivists, if not a universal one.

Post 16

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 7:55pm

Not what some poster said somewhere, After all, even you have called yourself an Objectivist. What some published, recognized, authoritative Objectist argued in some book, journal, or authoritative website.

Post 17

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 8:06pm

Ted,

It was not 'some' poster, it was /multiple/ posters, on a forum called 'Objectivism Online'. And that was simply the /first/ example I came across with Googling. I was asked for 'an example'; I provided one, as well as the method I would use to find more.

It's been... hm, at least two years since I came across the idea that Objectivism did not recognize the commons, and I didn't exactly feel a need to make a bookmark for that particular factoid out of all the factoids I came across, so it may be impossible for me to re-locate my original reference.

It is rather obvious that I know less about Objectivism than I thought. I know even less about which books, journals, and/or "websites" you would consider authoritative. If you do not find my example compelling, then feel free to google up "Objectivism commons" yourself for a better example, or please provide a list of printed or online material you would consider authoritative enough to suit you.

Post 18

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 8:28pm

You will find all sorts of people calling themselves Objectivists who believe all sorts of things, such as Christian Objectivists and Anarcho-Capitalists and numismatists and carbohydrate restrictives and furries.

Don't be disingenuous with your requests. The burden lies with you, since you made the claim. I just gave you a list of suitable sources. And you have already been referred to the AR Lexicon, which lists plenty of sources.

But I'll provide the answer for you. Objectivists are not private property absolutists. We don't believe, for example, that you can summarily execute someone for trespassing since it is your land, Luke Setzer notwithstanding. We believe that it is better that, so far as possible, all property should be privately owned. This doesn't mean land not already privately owned is up for grabs to the first polluter. It does not follow from that that until some way is found to parcel out the ocean or the moon or the strip of grass along a public road it is alright for someone to dump their trash their or set it ablaze. Fishing rights, for instance, could be established on a first come, first use basis. Perhaps. It's a technical matter. That doesn't mean until then unlimited sea dumping is fine. Anyone who claims that you could simply shoot every buffalo on the commons for fun simply because the commons has not yet been privatized is a graffiti artist, not a philosopher.

Happy New Year.

Post 19

Thursday, December 31, 2009 - 8:47pm