From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Theory?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:36:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov3.173404.10697@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>In article <Bx426q.M5@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>  How do you know what definition they used -- they didn't *define*
>>  rights in the Declaration of Independence; they merely *delineated*
>>  what they thought they were, and even these were deemed to be
>>  "endowed by their Creator".   A definition does not create an 
>>  objective fact about the world, except for the fact of the definition
>>  itself.   In electronics (or physics) I=E/R is not true by definition,
>>  it's true because it can be SHOWN to be true.   If I defined "I=R/E"
>>  the only fact in that sentence would be that I wrote it down, not 
>>  that it was actually true.
>
>I'm getting confused here.  Are you saying a fact CAN be shown to be true?
>Or not?

  "True" exists in an epistemological context.  The epistemological
  context of science is logical empiricism.  In that context a fact
  can definitely be shown to be true.  Logical empiricism is the only
  epistemology shown to have any any track record at all.  It is the
  only one that allows disputes between different people's subjective
  experiences of the world to be resolved so that progress in building
  ever more refined and precise models of the world can occur.

  Indeed "objective" only exists within that context -- unless Rand is 
  trying (again) to redefine language she is stuck having to employ
  that sort of methodology.   Basically I claim that an objective world
  exists "out there" and that "knowledge" consists of a precise, testable,
  falsifiable model with good, reliable predictive power to describe that
  world.   "I=E/R" meets this criteria perfectly.

> Are you a skeptic as far as knowledge is concerned, or not? 

  I expect all models to be falsifiable.


>>  Science does not deny that humans need oxygen to live so this is
>>  not some great philosophical breakthrough.  Nor is it news that
>>  taking away someone's oxygen kills them.   But Rand tries to
>>  make philosophical hay out of this.   Unfortunately she merely
>>  ends up saying that killing is "bad" by *definition* so she's
>>  assuming her conclusion (circular arguing).
>>  
>Again, what the hell are you talking about?  You are just making things up
>(bad things), and then attributing them to Rand.  There are enough people
>that have read and comprehended at least some of Rands works in this forum
>to see that you're simply talking through your hat when it comes to
>analysing Rand.

  You're free to show where you think I'm wrong.  Most of the people on 
  this newsgroup have read Rand and nobody has offered any concrete
  objections to my critique of her.
        
  
  
>  Look, if you want to continue discussion, argue ideas, not
>"this person said this"--it will make things lot's easier.  Argue against me,
>not a dead philosopher

  But YOU haven't made any points yet.   YOU have only made vague
  references to Rand.   You're free to explain why YOU think that
  absolute rights exist and then we can argue with YOU.


>So what your saying is that objective truth is derived at WITHOUT personal
>experience?  If so, where odes a person get knowledge, God?  (Wouldn't God
>be a personal experience, though?)

  I'm saying (and it's not just me -- this is the whole philosophical
  basis of the Enlightenment and subsequently, science so I suggest
  you take some philosophy courses)  that some means must be devised
  to *distinguish* knowledge that is purely subjective from that which
  reflects objective reality.  (note the axiomatic assumption that
  there IS objective reality)   Logical empiricism -- and this is 
  subsumed under the scientific method -- is that means. 

  The scientific method is an interative process:  The "empirical" part
  involves observing the world.  But the *logical* part is not just
  "thinking about it".   This is one place Rand goes wrong.  She 
  adopts the Aristotelian concept that reflection is sufficient.
  The great revolution of the Enlightenment was the concept of  
  creating a model (this is the "logical" part) and TESTING it
  against a new round of observation.   When you do this it very
  rapidly becomes obvious that such a test becomes meaningless
  unless terms are defined very precisly.  So the beauty of what
  started in the 17th century is that it imposed the need for 
  *operational* definitions and *precise metrics* on definitions.
  Since Rand is stuck back in 250 BC she doesn't have these.
                                                            

  
>Knowledge is obtained in a certain way.  There is a right way to do it, and
>there are wrong ways to do it.  If you simply "make things up", i.e. say
>you saw a flying saucer but really didn't, this would be an example of
>an incorrect way.

   But what if you REALLY AND TRULY IN YOUR HEART-OF-HEARTS *THOUGHT*
   you saw one?



>             If I had all the experiences of being abducted by aliens,
>I'd be able to objectively say just that.

   Again, you're making up a new meaning for "objective".   If it's not
   testable, it's not objective.   "I=E/R" is testable.


>If, from the time you are a child, you are taught that aliens are a common
>occurence, and that people get abducted all the time, etc., then it
>would be a valid thing to say that you had been abducted by aliens.

   You are welcome to cite any sources or evidence for why you think
   this would be a "valid" claim.   You have clearly never taken (or
   passed) a logic course in your life.



>Rand offered hers in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy, which,
>obviously, you HAVE NOT READ or understood.

  No, I just disagree with it for the reasons I stated, above.  Her
  epistemology is not testable or falsifiable.   Look, the Aritotelian
  approach served the Greeks well up to a point.  The whole reason
  why it was supplanted in Europe during the Enlightenment was because
  it had big weaknesses.   And the major one was that it had no means
  to resolve disputes between disparate subjective opinions.  Ultimately
  any model based on subjectivism fails when one person *really and truly*
  believes X and another one *really and truly* believes Y, and X and Y
  are mutually exclusive.  Science doesn't have this problem because 
  science requires that theorems be testable and falsifiable.   So 
  science advances.   Notice that ethics doesn't -- people are debating
  the same ethical conundrums today as they were 2500 years ago.



---peter








Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory