From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:29:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <By0v26.7BE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:

>>>not (necessarily) serve as the criterion for inclusion.  A definition,
>>>in Rand's epistemology, serves to identify the fundamental (contextually
>>>fundamental, recall) attributes of the existents.
>>
>>  How do you decide what constitutesa "fundamental" attribute?
>
>This is a reasonable question, but not (as Nelson appears to think)
>an unanswerable one.  The fundamentality of attributes for definitional
>purposes is determined by context.

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


>A child may define human as 'living thing which talks'.  This
>is certainly an attribute of human beings.  And, within the context 
>of the knowledge of a child, this definition states the most obvious
>and important distinction between humans and other things.

  Again, this is arbitrary.  A child might define "human" as "that
  which gives milk", for instance.  Or a zillion other things.
  Which is why a contextual approach to definitions is not very rigorous.


>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.


>>  In other words you are not prepared to define "reason".
>
>Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material
>provided by man's senses.
>
>That is a definition.  I'm not sure what your complaint is.

  It's not testable.  If I make the statment that "light travels at
  ~186,000 miles per second in a vacuum", and I want to verify it
  it's easy to do so because all the terms are defined.  But if
  we make the statement that "humans are rational" and we want
  to verify it we *cannot* because the terms are undefined.  I can't
  tell if all humans are rational, if some humans are, if some
  humans are some of the time, whether any particular act is 
  rationally-based, etc.   This "definition" of rational is like
  saying that the Mona Lisa is great art, or Beethoven wrote beautiful
  music -- you would get broad, general agreement out in the street,
  but it's not anything you can construct a logical system around.



>>  The question still stands, unanswerd my Mr. Wales or Mr. Starr:
>>  What is meant by "rational" (or "reason")?  How do you know when you
>>  have it?  How do you know how much you have?
>
>The meaning of a concept is the units to which it refers.  Here are
>some particular instances of human reasoning: Peter Nelson uses a computer
>to compose e-mail letters.  He strings together words which are abstractions
>from reality.  He works with premises and conclusions.  This is human
>reason.

  This is like saying that concertos by Mozart and sonatas by Beethoven
  are instances of beautiful music and that this forms the basis of a
  definition.  There is a difference between *example* and *definition*,
  even IF we agree that the example represents an instance of the thing
  in question.


>Peter has the faculty of reason.

  You haven't proven it.  Your "definition" amounts to nothing more
  than "I recognize it when I see it".


>But if we are engaged in a more everyday conversation about human
>beings, then the definition based on genomes is not very enlightening.

  But allegedly Rand is NOT engaged in an "everyday" discussion -
  she is trying to build a logical system.  In "everyday" parlance
  it may be acceptable to equate "weight" to "mass" -- but it won't
  do for trying to construct a science of physics.



>>  I can cite the tests used to verify the theoretical proposition
>>  that, for instance, light can be bent by gravity.  Perhaps Mr. Wales
>>  would be so kind as to cite an instance of "testing" any of Rand's
>>  theories.
>
>Well, the demonstration that I have given (up above) that you
>have the rational faculty is an instance of a test.  I observed
>reality and compared it to my theory.

  And I have observed the same reality and reached different
  conclusions.    Your "test" depends on the subjective appraisal
  of the observer.  An objective test would not.  A smallpox vaccine
  will prevent the subject from contracting smallpox regardless of
  whether the subject believed in medicine and viruses, or even 
  knew she had been vaccinated.


>  I conclusively demonstrated the proposition 'Peter Nelson is a
>  rational animal.'  Would you care to dispute that claim?

  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.


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory