From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:07:08 GMT

>  Why?  The definition of "mass" in physics is not based on
>  context.  

But of course it is!  I don't really have any idea how you could
argue such a thing.  Has the definition of the term changed over
time?  Have scientists looked at reality and decided that what
fundamentally determines 'mass' is different from what was previously
thought?

Has there ever been a scientist who thought that 'mass' and 'weight'
were the same thing?  Did that scientist look at reality and discover
that there are actually _2_ separate concepts of interest: mass AND
weight?

The answer to all these questions is obviously yes.  The definition
of "mass" currently used in physics is subject to revision upon
the discovery of new information.  This is the scientific method,
Peter, of which you claim to be so fond.

We are able to revise definitions, to form new concepts, and to
argue philosophy.  We are rational beings.

>>That more important thing is that people are able to use concepts
>>and to draw abstract conclusions.  This faculty helps to explain
>>(and is causally efficacious) lots of other stuff about humans,
>>including: talking, building cars, doing math.
>
>  To a geneticist distinguishing humans on this basis would not
>  be very important.

Which is precisely what I said!  I'm glad that we agree on this point.
The definition of the concept 'human' would be different for the purposes
of genetic research than for discussion of baseball.  That is to say,
the definition is contextual.  

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

Now your complaint appears to have shifted.  The complaint is not
that Rand leaves her terms undefined, but that her definitions are
not of a particular form, that form being (perhaps?) mathematical?

It is very clear that it is possible to have knowledge even in
cases where we do not have omniscience.  The primary requirement
is that we have precisely defined concepts, with the criterion for
'precision' determined by context.  

>  Yes.  Since I have no definition of rational I do not claim
>  that I am rational.  For all I know my perception that I am
>  even willing myself to write this could be, and according to
>  at least some metaphysicist may well be, nothing more than
>  an epiphenomenon.

At the risk of sounding facetious, I think that it is about time that
I say: I'll take you at your word, Peter.  Until such time as you
are willing to claim rationality for yourself, I'll just assume you
have none.

But other observers will see that I'm only joking.  Why?  Because
they have read my postings and have seen that I have a definition
of 'rationality' which is sufficiently precise to allow us to 
determine that you are a rational being.  A rather stubborn and
offensive one, to be sure.  One who is a mere poseur with respect
to knowledge about the philosophy of science.  But endowed nonetheless,
with at least the capacity to manipulate abstractions.

Peter _is_ a rational animal, his own protestations to the contrary
notwithstanding.

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian