Universals - History vs Rand

Ed T. wrote:

Now, for the ratio, I actually don't need "thermometer-numbers" (I don't need to have ever witnessed a thermometer-measured body temperature of 98.6 degrees F). I could, instead, just say that this pot of water over here is half (0.5
times) body temperature and that that pot of water over there is twice (2.0 times) body temperature.

Okay, but I say your performance would be poor and subjective. Other people would report different ratios for the same samples. You would give different ratios for the same temperature sample at different times. You might say one sample is warmer than another when by thermometer it is not. None of this would happen with a thermometer. This points to the great importance of standardized measuring instruments. Apparently you don't appreciate that importance (to wit, also your caveman scenario), but try considering manufacturing, engineering and scientific research. Such instruments give precise, consistent results and it doesn't matter who is using them, provided the user is competent. Improvised and/or imagined measurement is crude and permits subjective elements. It works very poorly for manufacturing, engineering and scientific research.

Let me see if I understand you. Using "Mississippi River" as a unit and then measuring the clarity of what I said against that unit -- you come up with a value of one unit (of Mississippi-River-clarity)?
I'd want to know how that measurement was performed and what is the standard error of measurement. I can't see how that could be an accurate measurement.

It was a comparison using a common metaphor. I did not and would not say it was measurement. Muddy prose and muddy water are not commensurate. If you want to mezshur them and fabricate equal numerical values, be my guest. :-) I wonder if I could register a trademark for MEZSHUR in your name. :-)

My point was that William's description of the giraffe to Reginald was adequate -- without instruments. The measurements William performed and conveyed to Reginald informed Reginald enough for him to be able to adjust his behavior in
light of the evidence of a giraffe. Reginald did not need to see the giraffe

I don't agree that it was "without instruments". No exacting instrument like a tape measure was used, but a crude unit of length was improvised and used crudely. Note that I explicitly included improvised measuring and imaginatively measuring as subcategories of measurement in post 58. But I emphasize crude. You gave ratios relative to the height of a man. Exactly how much is that? There are short men and tall men and those in between. It is similar to, but even cruder, than using a cubit.

(quoting Rand) Now what is the purpose of measurement? Observe that measurement consists of relating an easily perceivable unit to larger or smaller quantities, then to infinitely larger or infinitely smaller quantities, which are not directly perceivable to man.

Try

~~measuring~~
mezshuring 1000 degrees C with your body and w/o a thermometer. :-)

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/27, 9:28am)

Post 61

Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 5:17pm

Merlin,

*************
Such instruments give precise, consistent results and it doesn't matter who is using them, provided the user is competent. Improvised and/or imagined measurement is crude and permits subjective elements. It works very poorly for manufacturing, engineering and scientific research.
*************

Yeah, but so what -- because we aren't talking about scientific research, we are talking about concept formation and how it is possible without the accuracy and precision afforded by the diligent use of man-made instruments. Not even a prior knowledge of numbers is required for concept-formation (in general).

In fact, since numbers are conceptual, the very idea of needing a prior knowledge of numbers -- in order to form concepts -- is contradictory. That's like saying you have to have a trophy first in order to compete. It's backwards.

Ed

Post 62

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 10:08am

So what, Ed? If you believe I hold said idea, you are badly mistaken.

Post 63

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 6:23pm

Merlin,

But you said as much in the last paragraph of post #2 in this thread.

Ed

Post 64

Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 3:30am

But you said as much in the last paragraph of post #2 in this thread.

You have a wild, bizarre, and badly mistaken imagination. I said in post 2:

If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles.

Yes, since then I have said in effect that prior knowledge of numbers are required to form one concept, MEASUREMENT. What you said implies/suggests I said numbers are required to form all concepts. Do you see no difference between all and one out of all? You failed to acknowledge the vastly different contexts.

Are you and John A. playing tag-team giving each other Atlas points, merely to get revenge on Merlin?

Post 65

Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 9:00am

Merlin,

Yes, since then I have said in effect that prior knowledge of numbers are ...

Okay, but doesn't your theory (that Rand was wrong by using a "measurement omission" standard) rest on the idea that then you would have to have conceptual knowledge of numbers (in just the one case you mention) and/or a conceptual knowledge of measurement (in all others) before you can form concepts -- and that this 'impossible necessity' (i.e., this contradiction) is what it is that makes Rand wrong?

Are you and John A. playing tag-team giving each other Atlas points, merely to get revenge on Merlin?

There may be a conspiracy against you, Merlin, but I am not part of it. For at least a week, I haven't even read anything from John A. [No offense, John; I wasn't trying to avoid you; I just haven't been paying attention to all the threads].

:-)

Ed

Post 66

Friday, July 30, 2010 - 4:38am

Replying to post 65. I find your question is either one I've already answered or a hodgepodge that I am not going to try to untangle.

Post 67

Friday, July 30, 2010 - 6:18pm

Merlin,

Okay.

Ed

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 9:15am

Travis Norsen's paper about temperature is here.

Ed T., note that Norsen says

the "degree of perceived warmth" of a body is not the same thing as its "temperature". (p. 2)

Post 69

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 1:51pm

Merlin,

I haven't even been able to get past the first page, because I'm already tripped up by an assumption on Norsen's part:

... concepts have a hierarchical structure: while some (e.g., "table", "bird", "tree") can be formed directly and exclusively on the basis of perception, others are higher-level in the sense that their formation involves -- and so requires -- previously-formed concepts and/or conceptual knowledge. As we will see, "temperature" is on this account most certainly a higher-level concept, ...

But I read in the book: "The Logical Leap" that you don't need a prior concept of temperature to feel burned by a stove (that the awareness of a temperature difference is immediately available to perception). If you stick your hand, successively, in water at 33 degrees Fahrenheit, then at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, then at 90 degrees Fahrenheit, then at 110 degrees Fahrenheit, then at 212 degrees Fahrenheit -- and you still don't know what temperature is, then you've got a problem.

Maybe you can straighten my thinking out on this. Regardless, I'll continue reading to see if I get enlightened. If Norsen argues that the definition of temperature has altered, and that this altered definition somehow retroactively alters the concept -- then I'd say he's got things in reverse. Definitions change with advances in knowledge (see Rand's analogy of a growing child's changing definition of "man"), but concepts don't.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/27, 2:15pm)

Post 70

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 2:55pm

Okay, I read a lot more of it. Let me get my thoughts straight:

Temperature is to hot and cold as furniture is to table and chair.

A table and a chair are things that are directly perceived. Furniture is not something ever directly perceived. Instead, furniture is our mental integration of all of those individual instances of perceiving tables (and forming a concept of table) or of perceiving chairs (and forming a concept of chair). If we never had individual concepts of tables and chairs, we'd never arrive at the concept of furniture. Therefore, furniture is a higher-level concept (i.e., relies on prior concept-formation).

Temperature is not something ever directly perceived. Instead, temperature is our mental integration of all of those individual instances of perceiving heat (and forming a concept of "hot" or "heat") or of perceiving the absence of heat (and forming a concept of "cold"). If we never had individual concepts of hot and cold, we'd never arrive at the concept of temperature. Therefore, temperature is a higher-level concept (i.e., relies on prior concept-formation).

Going through the (1) thermometric, (1a) caloric, (2) kinetic, and finally the (3) statistic "paradigms" involving the concept of temperature -- didn't ever change what we were talking about. I can agree with that.

But, Merlin, we still needed 2 or more instances of a kind of a "raw" (not a technology-aided measurement) sensation of heat in order to get into the epistemological position to arrive at the concept of temperature, which itself does require such technology -- something which can be considered as either as average kinetic energy (exact measurements omitted) or as "energy change divided by entropy change" (exact measurements omitted).

The minimum experience required to get into the epistemological position to be able to procure a conceptual knowledge/awareness of temperature seems to me to be:

1) Two direct perceptions of heat difference (so that you can integrate them and thereby form the low-level concept of "heat")
2) Invention of the thermometer (so that you can measure differences which were previously only perceived "raw" without advanced technology)

Just like there couldn't be a concept of multiple galaxies until someone made a strong enough telescope to pull them into view, there couldn't be a concept of temperature before the thermometer.

Am I actually getting this??

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/27, 3:06pm)

Post 71

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - 4:10pm

Ed T. (post 70):

Am I actually getting this??

I'd say you are at least well on your way.

Post 72

Friday, October 29, 2010 - 11:34am