tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post7679992102862829143..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Limits of LogicDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-22967096452300601942012-07-04T08:22:06.698-07:002012-07-04T08:22:06.698-07:00Isn't it logical to base your ideas on what yo...<i>Isn't it logical to base your ideas on what you know, what you have experienced? </i><br /><br />Technically, no. But often logic is used in a non-technical sense. Instead of meaning the study of valid reasoning, it's simply used as a sort of vague synonym for "rational." Of course, one could come up with logical arguments in support of the proposition. But how many people actually bother doing that?<br /><br /><i>Also, doesn't Rand say "All knowledge is contextual"?</i><br /><br />In the context of this post, what on earth is this supposed to mean? Does this mean that in some contexts (e.g., science, mathematics, geometry), logic is the appropriate method, and in other (e.g., some if not most everyday experience) it isn't? Well, in that case, there's no difference between my position and Rand's. But that surely can't be the case. It's extremely unlikely that either Rand or any of her orthodox followers would concede to my view (based on extensive cogsci research no less) that everyday practical reasoning is not strictly logical. Indeed, I doubt that they could even understand my view. Objectivists tend to forget that there's a lot more to logic than merely avoiding blatant contradictions. Nearly everyone recognizes and abhors people who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing one moment and the exact opposite the next. But logic is a lot more exacting and subtle than merely asserting that A is A and it is wrong to say otherwise. There are all sorts of inferences that are useful in practical life (because they lead to true conclusions in the majority of instances) but are technically invalid and illogical. I don't find in Objectivism any appreciation of this interesting fact.<br /><br />I would also note that logic is far more useful when it comes to testing conclusions than it is at arriving at conclusions. This is really the larger point in all my criticism of the Objectivist over-emphasis on logic. I contend that Rand placed way too much emphasis on processes of thought: on focusing one's mind, concept-formation, logic, etc. Rand appears to have believed that she was right and everyone who disagreed with her was wrong because she knew how to think. That is an arrogant attitude that is contrary to science and practical wisdom. The presumed quality of thought that goes into one's conclusions about matters of fact in no way objectively validates or confirms or even corroborates them.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41010357004210618712012-07-03T23:49:08.291-07:002012-07-03T23:49:08.291-07:00"People don’t think logically, they think exp..."People don’t think logically, they think experientially, in terms of what they know."<br /><br />Isn't it logical to base your ideas on what you know, what you have experienced? <br /><br />Also, doesn't Rand say "All knowledge is contextual"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08428377285563304609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52817891434760021242009-05-09T00:16:00.000-07:002009-05-09T00:16:00.000-07:00gregnyquist and Red Grant:
Remember, the post whe...<B>gregnyquist and Red Grant</B>:<br /><br />Remember, the post where the syllogisms were first presented started out with this quotation from Leonard Peikoff:<br /><br />"Logic is man’s method of reaching conclusions objectively by deriving them without contradiction from the facts of reality—ultimately, from the evidence provided by man’s senses."<br /><br />Now, if the point of these two posts was to show that, as you said:<br /><br />"Sure, you could kill a lot of patients if this reasoning was the conclusion of the diagnosis—but as the start of the diagnosis, it's pretty good."<br /><br />Then these two posts use the Peikoff quotation as a strawman: you can't exactly attack someone's statement about how "Logic is man’s method of reaching conclusions" if your point is only about "starts" and not "conclusions."<br /><br />I'm not saying there isn't plenty in Rand/Objectivism to attack when it comes to their insistence on logic, it's just that the attack should be that when someone Objectivists disagree with presents evidence in support of their conclusion, Objectivists dismiss it as "intuition" or "mysticism" or "faith"; when an Objectivist does the same thing, well, that's just 'provided by man’s senses'.<br /><br />The real weakness in the Objectivists' defense of their philosophy (and not necessarily the philosophy itself) is that they create exceptions to their rules through which you can basically fit almost any other ideology you want as long as you dress it up in Objectivist terms. Allowing in that which is "provided by man's senses" as "evidence" is exactly that sort of exception: you could even bring in 'gut feelings' if you wanted by calling it 'data provided by the Enteric Nervous System'<br /><br />However, don't start off with a quote about conclusions, and then make a point, well, not about conclusions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66971438491558685612009-05-07T19:46:00.000-07:002009-05-07T19:46:00.000-07:00Wells, brilliantly conceived and implemented argue...Wells, brilliantly conceived and implemented arguement.<br /><br />One of the very best I've read anywhere.<br /><br />Actually, I had the same inkling, thought about making a point as you've made here, but I got distracted by E, and F.<br /><br />Still, I don't think I would have made as succint and convincing arguement as you've made.<br /><br /><br />Well done!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />___________________________________<br /><br />I think Anon has missed the point here. Sure, you could kill a lot of patients if this reasoning was the conclusion of the diagnosis—but as the start of the diagnosis, it's pretty good. In other words, this invalid form of reasoning is useful for coming up with a hypothesis (one can use "inductive" forms of reason as well for this sort of thing). But then, once you get the hypothesis, you start testing. Even this will not get you a definitive diagnosis, just well corroborated one. - Greg<br />___________________________________<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I agree, even though I still would say it's neither necessarily valid nor necessarily invalid on E.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47452407771275708772009-05-07T13:39:00.000-07:002009-05-07T13:39:00.000-07:00Anon: "For example, in Syllogism E, that's a great...Anon: "For example, in Syllogism E, that's a great way to kill a bunch of patients, just treating them for a disease X because that disease has symptoms A, B, and C."<br /><br />I think Anon has missed the point here. Sure, you could kill a lot of patients if this reasoning was the conclusion of the diagnosis—but as the start of the diagnosis, it's pretty good. In other words, this invalid form of reasoning is useful for coming up with a hypothesis (one can use "inductive" forms of reason as well for this sort of thing). But then, once you get the hypothesis, you start testing. Even this will not get you a definitive diagnosis, just well corroborated one.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54438623843831798832009-05-07T11:10:00.000-07:002009-05-07T11:10:00.000-07:00Actually Syllogism C Or
Whatever makes for full e...Actually Syllogism C Or<br /><br />Whatever makes for full employment is socially beneficial.<br />Being in a state of war tends to make for full employment.<br />Therefore war is socially beneficial.<br /><br />is still not logically valid.<br />The second line uses 'tends to', therefore the third line must also use 'tends to' rather than 'is' in order to be logically valid, since language that will weaken a claim will percolate down to the conclusion.<br /><br />Here's why<br />The first line says,<br /><br />Whatever makes for full employment is socially beneficial.<br />Or<br />Full Employment -> Socially Beneficial<br />Pretty stright forward.<br /><br />However, the second line says<br />Being in a state of war tends to make for full employment.<br /><br />Here you cannot assume that a state of war will result in full employment. Since you used 'tends to' what is being said is that war might result in full employment, which is a different claim from that it will.<br /><br />More mathematically the statment says<br />(There Exists) a war that will result in full employment.<br />AND<br />(There Exists) a war that will not result in full employment.<br /><br />So now we have two types of wars, One of which results in full employment, and the other of which does not. The one that does can, of course, be used to make the syllogism logically valid. The other cannot. While it could be possible for a war that does not result in full employment to nevertheless be socially beneficial, that conclusion does not follow from the premises.Wellsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70935646807467149532009-05-06T10:24:00.000-07:002009-05-06T10:24:00.000-07:00I got all them right, save for the last one (I cou...I got all them right, save for the last one (I couldn't figure out a conclusion). Do I get a cookie? ^_^Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71720301180239198862009-05-05T16:45:00.000-07:002009-05-05T16:45:00.000-07:00Once we switch from "logical" to "verifiable" to "...Once we switch from "logical" to "verifiable" to "best guess inference", which is really what most human beings use when they aren't hardcore empirical scientists in their fields of expertise, then the attitudes of Objectivists towards skepticism and error becomes very unbecoming.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10683618937315256082009-05-05T14:17:00.000-07:002009-05-05T14:17:00.000-07:00"People don’t think logically, they think experien..."People don’t think logically, they think experientially, in terms of what they know."<br /><br />Why do we only have to be *one* type of thinker? Thinking logically might not give us the answer, but it does often tell us what the answer can't be.<br /><br />For example, in Syllogism E, that's a great way to kill a bunch of patients, just treating them for a disease X because that disease has symptoms A, B, and C.<br /><br />What if there's a disease Y which has symptoms A, B, C, and D, but the treatment for disease X kills people who have disease Y?<br /><br />Just because "much of the time we need to reason nondeductively—either inductively, or in terms of likelihoods, or of causes and effects" to begin with, that doesn't mean we shouldn't then submit what we've figured out to deductive reasoning. <br /><br />Objectivists may be playing games by calling things that are only 'verifiable' by the term 'logical' but attack that, not the importance of logic itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com