Defending the Impossible

Over at amazon.com, there's a bit of a philosophical duel going on between myself and Rand apologist Paul Beaird. While it hardly reaches the exalted rank of Lincoln-Douglass or Wilberforce-Huxley, it will give Rand watchers a chance to witness an intelligent advocate of Rand trying to defend three impossible positions, namely: (1) that Rand logically derived an ought from an is, a value from a fact; (2) that there exists no equivocation between "man's life" and "man's survival qua man"; and (3) that Hume denied the possibility of any connection between fact and value. Since these positions are indefensible, Mr. Beaird spends most of his time try to divert attention through various debating tricks, particular the old the best defense is a good offense trick. Instead of defending Rand, he attacks what he imagines are my failings, with predictable results.

Empirical responsibility is not exactly one of Mr. Beaird's virtues. He twice insists that "Rand's use of observable facts and the relationships between them [which facts and relationships are those? can he state any?] to demonstrate the natural foundation of the concept 'value' is so well-known by now that, for you to still insist Hume had not been refuted reveals an uncomprehending mind..." Of course, no evidence is brought forth to back this extraordinary claim. Rand critic Michael Huemer expresses a very different point of view:

Objectivists seem to find "The Objectivist Ethics" completely convincing. But hardly anyone else finds it at all convincing. This is not a trivial observation—one often finds that people who do not accept a whole philosophical system nevertheless find certain parts of it plausible. And one often finds that people who are not ultimately persuaded by an argument nevertheless see some plausibility in it. But neither of these things is true of the argument of “The Objectivist Ethics”—hardly anyone finds that argument even slightly plausible, unless they also buy into virtually all of Ayn Rand’s views. This is not true of most of her other views: one would not be surprised to find a non-Objectivist who nevertheless thinks Rand’s political views are reasonable, or her epistemological views, or her aesthetic theories. The explanation is simple: the theory of “The Objectivist Ethics” is simultaneously the most distinctive and the least plausible, worst defended of all of Rand’s major ideas. (Here is a nicer way to say that: all of Rand’s other major theories are more plausible and better defended than that one.)

Now who is right? Is Rand's argument in "The Objectivist Ethics" so "well known by now" that only an "uncomprehending mind" would fail to understand that Rand had "refuted" Hume? Or is the argument only accepted by Objectivists, who are committed to accepting everything by Rand, in defiance of fact and logic? Huemer's contention is by far the more plausible. I can't think of a single non-Objectivist who accepts Rand's argument. And most people have never heard of it at all, and would not be able to make heads or tails of it if it were explained to them.

In my exchange with Mr. Beaird, I have made repeated calls for Beaird or any other Objectivist to back their talk and produce this marvelous refutation of Hume. Of course, no such proof will ever be produced. Ironically, however, the aforementioned Michael Huemer has attempted to state the Objectivist argument in logical form. I have linked to it before, but its worth the occasional perusal. Huemer finds all of Rand's premises to be dubious for one reason or another. Nor is Huemer able to complete the chain of reasoning all the way to Rand's "man qua man." That, of course, is impossible, since it involves a palpable equivocation ("'man qua man' and 'rational' [are] fudge words" is Huemer's verdict).

The Limits of Logic

Let’s examine those syllogisms I presented in the last post and find out which are valid and which are not:

Syllogism A:

No Gox box when in purple socks.
Jocks is a Gox wearing purple socks.
Therefore Jocks does not now box.

Many people struggle with this syllogism, even though its logical structure is quite simple. The difficulty arises from the confusing, unfamiliar, even silly subjects of the syllogism. If presented in terms of more familiar objects, it becomes so easy that even a child can figure it out. Take, for example, the following syllogism, which has the same structure:

No cars run when they’re out of fuel.
My car is out of fuel.
Therefore my car does not now run.

Obviously, both syllogisms are valid. But as Morton Hunt notes, “if we were truly logical thinkers, we would find the first [syllogism] just as easy to evaluate as the second one.”

Syllogism B:

Those who believe in democracy believe in free speech.
Fascists do not believe in democracy.
Therefore Fascists do not believe in free speech.

Many people assume this syllogism is valid because the premises and conclusion all seem to be true. How, then, can it not be valid? Well, consider the following syllogism, which features the same structure:

Robins have feathers.
Chickens are not robins.
Therefore chickens do not have feathers.

Obviously, we confronting an invalid syllogism. The reason so many people are fooled is because they don’t use logic when they evaluate the syllogism, they use there own experience and knowledge. This is one of the critical findings of cognitive science. People don’t think logically, they think experientially, in terms of what they know.

Syllogism C:

Whatever makes for full employment is socially beneficial.
Being in a state of war tends to make for full employment.
Therefore war is socially beneficial.

Here we are confronted by a syllogism, the premises of which appear, at least superficially, as true, yet which has a conclusion that seems false. Yet the syllogism itself is valid. What gives on this one?

People tend to think this syllogism is invalid because the conclusion is wrong. They often don’t notice that the first premise is dubious, because it seems reasonable enough at first glance. What this syllogism demonstrates is the tendency for human beings to judge arguments based solely on whether they agree (or disagree) with the conclusion. Again, logic is ignored.

Syllogism D:

If it’s raining, the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore it’s raining.

This is another syllogism that gives people great difficulty. Why? Because it exhibits a natural form of reasoning that is useful in ordinary life—so they are inclined to regard it as valid. But it isn’t valid—not logically. Even if the streets are wet, this doesn’t necessarily mean it must be raining. The streets may be wet for some other reason, such as a broken water main or a street-washing machine. To be sure, in real life, these alternative explanations aren’t very likely and can usually be ignored. That is why such reasoning, though logically invalid, often leads to correct conclusions and is used with great effectiveness in the real world.

Syllogism E:

Disease X is known to produce various symptoms, including A, B, and C.
This patient has symptoms A, B, and C.
Therefore this patient has disease X.

This is not a syllogism that was used to test logical ability in cognitive science experiments. On the contrary, it is the form of reasoning routinely used by doctors when analyzing patients. Logically, it is an invalid form of reasoning. But, as Morton Hunt notes, “it is a highly plausible way to begin a diagnosis.”

Syllogism F:

Some of the beekeepers are artists.
None of the chemists are beekeepers.
Therefore… some of the artists are not chemists.

This is the most difficult to get right (and you don’t have a 50% chance of guessing, like you do with the others). If we make the terms a little more sensible and familiar, it’s easy at least to evaluate as to its validity:

Some birds can swim.
No fish are birds.
Therefore some animals that can swim are not fish.

So what does all this prove (or at least suggest)? Namely this: that individuals rely far more on experiential and/or plausible reasoning when they judge the validity of arguments than they do on logic. And why is experiential/plausible reasoning more important than logic? Because, as Morton Hunt puts it,

logical reasoning is in large part abnormal, unnatural, and not generally applicable to everyday experience and to the problems of survival. [Logic] consists of a set of artificial rules that we can learn and can apply—indeed, must apply—in order to solve certain kinds of problems, but it is not a means by which our minds can effectively interpret the larger part of the reality around us; our natural way of reasoning, however, is just such a means…

Logic enables us to judge the validity of our own deductive reasoning, but much of the time we need to reason nondeductively—either inductively, or in terms of likelihoods, or of causes and effects, none of which fits within the rules of formal logic. The archetype of everyday realistic [i.e., experiential] reasoning might be something like this: This object (or situation) reminds me a lot of another that I experienced before, so probably I can expect much to be true of this one that was true of that one. Such reasoning is natural and utilitarian—but logically invalid.

Objectivist Myths 2: Rand Solved The Mind/Body Problem

The 'mind/body' (or perhaps better called the 'mind/brain') problem is perhaps the toughest problem in all philosophy. Once again, there is an impression abroad that Rand somehow solved this issue, or even made some important contribution to it. Unfortunately, this again turns out to be false.

Objectivists seem to generally confuse Rand having a strong opinion on an issue with her solving it. While she talked a lot about 'rejecting the mind/body dichotomy' on examination she says little that is interesting or original on the subject. In fact, it closely resembles little more than double-talk. For, oddly, despite her strenuous rejection of any "mind-body dichotomy," we find her elsewhere strongly embracing a obviously dualist position without so much as batting an eyelash. For example, from the ITOE p166:

"I want to stress this; it is a very important distinction. A great number of philosophical errors and confusions are created by failing to distinguish between consciousness and existence -- between the process of consciousness and the reality of the world outside, between the perceiver and the perceived."

Further, from Diana Hsieh's handy survey, "Mind in Objectivism" we find Harry Binswanger avowing:

"So, yes, I'm a dualist. Or as Leonard [Peikoff] says in OPAR, because the term dualism is not one we have to fight to save and it's so associated with Descartes, the proper word for it is: Objectivism, not dualism."

Of course, a dualism without a dichotomy is rather like a grin without at cat - and we find ourselves again, as we do so often with Randian theorising, in the realm of mere word play. (incidentally, Binswanger's comment stands as yet another excellent if unwitting example of a verbalist philosophy in action; he admits he is a dualist, but apparently what is most urgently required is to change the terminology from "dualism" to "Objectivism"!)

Via such wordplay Rand can, as she does in her epistemology, both accept and deny the same position with equal vehemence. Adding further confusion, Rand sometimes even denies that the issue is a philosophical problem, and tries to fob it off onto science. As Hsieh notes:

"When asked whether “the relation of conscious activity to brain activity” is “a scientific question,” Rand simply replies “Yes” (Rand 1990, 290)."

Well, if the mind/brain problem isn't a philosophical question, then what is she on about then? According to Rand, the philosopher's proper role is only to "define the terms in question." Never mind the problem, worry about the words! Who needs philosophers, one wonders, when you've got dictionaries. Objectivism's verbalist priorities and scholastic method are once again obvious.

Further, as Hsieh's survey shows, what Rand does say on the subject is so vague and provides so little clear guidance that her followers have merely ended up arranging themselves all over the map of the historically pre-existing dualistic positions on the subject, with little more agreement among them than currently exists anywhere else. For example, Nathaniel Branden has tentatively plumped for panpsychism. Roger Bissell holds what appears to be a version of identity theory, with hard-deterministic implications. Binswanger has the above causal substance dualism, which is apparently "controversial" among Objectivists. But it is hardly any "spookier" than Rand and Peikoff's position, which from what can be made out, is a vague but interactionist position. In other words, nothing particularly new here, and certainly nothing like a solution to this ancient question. Hsieh's survey conclusion says it all:

"The precise nature of a theory of mind compatible with Objectivism...has yet to be established."

Objectivist Myths: 1. Rand Solved Hume's 'Problem of Induction'

A handy, ongoing list of fact-free beliefs about Ayn Rand's intellectual achievements.

Rand is widely believed by her followers to have solved most of the major philosophic questions. For example, she is thought to have answered what has come to be known as Hume's "problem of induction."

But did she in fact do this? Sadly, no:

Prof M:"The question is: where does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that the province of the issue of induction?

Rand: "Yes. That's the big question of induction...Which I couldn't even begin to discuss - because...I haven't worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it..." - Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology p304