tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3847034025062990925..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Ayn Rand & Epistemology 34Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70822653831513090632013-04-08T09:29:02.667-07:002013-04-08T09:29:02.667-07:00Indeed, Greg, "The dose makes the poison,&quo...Indeed, Greg, "The dose makes the poison," which requires one to use empirical methods over a priori reasoning if one is determine what dosage of which substances are poisonous, as well as for what purposes and in what amounts certain toxic substances can be used, for instance, chemotherapy drugs. A priori reasoning from definitions will not be able to tell us how much etoposide phosphate a cancer patient should receive per session, how many sessions per week, nor for how many weeks.Reynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57331228460846689772013-04-07T16:20:33.510-07:002013-04-07T16:20:33.510-07:00@ J Goard,
You write:
>I find it highly problem...@ J Goard,<br />You write:<br />>I find it highly problematic to describe words as the result of "human decisions"..."Poison" [has] literal counterexamples..:<br /><br />>(1) Someone drinks gallons of water for a radio contest and dies. This is called "water poisoning", but is it true that "Water is a poison"? I don't think so.<br /><br />Yes. I could also drink cyanide, but so long as the solution is say 0.1mg per 1 litre I will be fine. Does that mean cyanide is not a "poison"?<br /><br />Which is another example of why it is not worth quibbling over definitions, and the pursuit of "true meanings" of words is a wild goose chase. Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17986316729826681892013-04-05T21:25:48.373-07:002013-04-05T21:25:48.373-07:00Concept-formation is an issue dealing with matters... Concept-formation is an issue dealing with matters of fact. It is far too complicated a reality to be determined via arm chair speculation based on "common sense" or introspection. It requires sophisticated research techniques combined with exhaustive criticism and peer review. <br /><br /><br />So without benefit of peer review , a toddler does not know (or have knowledge of the fact)that that is mommy standing right there?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-83292085433266275472013-04-04T08:06:13.225-07:002013-04-04T08:06:13.225-07:00this involves conceptualizing "poison" n...this involves conceptualizing "poison" not so much as a concrete type of substance, but as a relationship between a particular organism and a particular amount of a substance. <br /><br />so that regardless of the concrete substance, the amount of substance, the organism, or anything else, if the _relationship_ is one of "poison," then the word poison is used.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50048495695982594652013-04-04T07:53:11.866-07:002013-04-04T07:53:11.866-07:00interesting point -- another way to look at these ...interesting point -- another way to look at these counterexamples would be to place them in a context which allows for subtleties of meaning to be chosen and understood. <br /><br />for instance, i interpret the phrase "water poisoning" in the context of my knowledge that water in moderation is not poison, but too much water at once is poison. thus to me, "water poisoning" means "becoming poisoned because you drank too much water."<br /><br />or in your latter two examples, a thing that is not poison to one person may be poison to somebody else, because of that person's peculiar health conditions -- just as a substance may be poison to ants but not to people, or vice versa.<br /><br />thus the word "poison" can be understood in a broader context, to include "poison in excess" and "poison to particular organisms."ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72913449071419266072013-04-04T00:52:12.386-07:002013-04-04T00:52:12.386-07:00I find it highly problematic to describe words as ...I find it highly problematic to describe words as the result of "human decisions". I would describe them instead as replicators in the manner of symbiotic organisms, whose degree of success and whose evolved variants obviously depend upon many human social behaviors which can be called "decisions" but also upon many which cannot.<br /><br />"Poison" is an interesting example, because literal counterexamples to your definition illustrate vividly how ordinary human life experience constrains word meanings in practice:<br /><br />(1) Someone drinks gallons of water for a radio contest and dies. This is called "water poisoning", but is it true that "Water is a poison"? I don't think so.<br /><br />(2) Someone drinks a glass of orange juice, and because of blood sugar regulation problems, gets pretty sick. Is orange juice a poison? No.<br /><br />(3) Someone with congested arteries eats ice cream, which provides the last big of cholesterol to trigger a heart attack. Is ice cream poison? No.<br /><br />My point is not the pedantic one, namely that you'd have to have qualified your definition further. Rather, it's the empirical linguistic claim that <i>a word akin to 'poison' which included such cases will never survive in a human language community</i>, because it ignores the importance of the default social situation. Words for 'poison' are connected to prototypical behaviors in prototypical situations, as ungtss described. This comes first, and any explicit verbal definition comes later (and invariably misses something).J. Goardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82386718458602078772013-03-29T09:53:46.588-07:002013-03-29T09:53:46.588-07:00the biological basis for this sort of short-hand r...the biological basis for this sort of short-hand rests in the fact that the conscious mind -- the prefrontal cortex -- can only think about a very few things at a time. in the context of day to day life, i can't process and handle a comprehensive understanding of the constituents and effects of every poisonous substance on earth. nor do i need to. but if this can be boiled down to a single fundamental concept -- like "poison" -- i can act efficiently and effectively with respect to things in my world.<br /><br />that is the point of concepts. shorthand which allows our conscious minds' limited resources to function at higher efficiency. like high level, object-based computer programming. or reduced instruction code.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-83716547227953877162013-03-29T09:31:43.081-07:002013-03-29T09:31:43.081-07:00when my three year old was younger, we used a diff...when my three year old was younger, we used a different word with more emotive content to designate poison: "pleh." then whenever we ran across something that would hurt her, we'd label it "Pleh." This was a critically useful piece of information for her, as a two year old non-chemist.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-67189973201044193642013-03-29T09:25:36.151-07:002013-03-29T09:25:36.151-07:00"Does this definition of poison provide any n..."Does this definition of poison provide any non-trivial information about matters of fact? No, it does not. It is quite possible to know the definition of poison and yet know nothing of any specific poison. The definition of poison merely provides a naming convention. If you come across a substance that harms or kills an organism, it's "poison." But a naming convention is not knowledge. Knowing what to call things is different from knowing about things."<br /><br />The purpose of defining a concept like "poison" is different than simply knowing what to call it. the purpose is to provide a mental shorthand -- a box -- in which to put all things that are "dangerous and or deadly to life."<br /><br />this is an extremely useful concept in the context in which it is used. and the context in which it is used is as a guide to action. I do not _need_ to know all the chemical reactions of arsenic within the human body in order to take particular actions with respect to it. all i need to know is that it's "poison." by putting a particular substance in the conceptual box "poison," i have identified it as a thing that i should stay away from if i want to keep myself alive, or pour it all over stuff i want to harm or kill. i know what to _do_ or _not_ do with it, based on what i want to accomplish.<br /><br />thus you're correct that calling something "poison" doesn't tell you anything about its physical constituents. what it tells you is the thing's effects with respect to life and health. which is a critical thing to understand, even if one does not know all the chemistry involved.<br /><br />in other words, you're right that it doesn't do what you say it doesn't do. but you're wrong in assuming anybody thinks its should.ungtsshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408476168472971648noreply@blogger.com