Certainty and the Problem of Induction

[dangolegators]

I am so reminded of a movie I just watched, The Master. The movie is obviously based on L Ron Hubbard and Scientology, but Rand and her own cult of True Believers like Burke certainly come to mind as well.

[Burke]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Do YOU realize that the definition of "Swan" is arbitrary, right? Do you also realize that it can be a swan and not a swan at the same time, depending on who's defining it? Do you also realize that over time even a swan will cease to be a swan?

Not in Ayn Rand's theory. Concepts are totally objective.

But you would have to read her book to see that. There is no good way I could explain it on a message board, which is why I've never really brought it up here to speak of.

But it's fascinating. I practically stopped going to class in law school because I was so absorbed in it. I was waiting for the postman to bring the next edition of The Objectivist anxiously.

This is a subject I've been interested in since I was about 15 years old.

[Burke]

What we are dealing with is certainty, the efficacy of our minds.

Long ago, I concluded that if skeptics ever admitted that we are capable of any certain knowledge, they are dead meat. Because after that, it would just be a case of how we got to the moon.

And I eventually learned that they were admitting it every time they opened their mouths and said anything.

Almost all my life, I've been interested in certainty.

And I have finally figured it out.

I pretty well figured it out a few years ago, but now I'm finalizing my thoughts and putting them down.

And I HAVE solved the a problem of Induction, but it was an easy extension of Ayn Rand's ideas.

Although I'm not certain anyone else has done it, nearly half a century after ITOE.

[WESGATORS]

We apply labels to something to make communication more efficient. When new entities arise or are otherwise discovered, we must determine whether the label is already inclusive of that which is new or if the label should be modified to be inclusive or if a new label should be applied to it. If we come across a bird with horns, will that still be a "bird?"

This doesn't seem like a real problem that needs to be solved other than to understand that one group of people may have a different way of classifying things than another group. This is most apparent in looking at the development of the different types of languages that various societies have. Fortunately, as it pertains to animals/plants; most of the scientists of the world as we know it work together on this to use the same classification system. I say "most" because there are likely smaller tribes scattered about that do not use the same naming convention to match up what they call an animal/plant with what we might call the same animal/plant (necessarily, we'd have a more difficult time communicating with these folks about certain animals/plants).

That we use a "base 10" numbering system is arbitrary, but all that really matters is that it can be effectively communicated between people all over the world.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Certainty is only certainty until you're wrong. What people typically describe as "certainty" is nothing more than something they have faith in that their mind is conditioned to accept as a fact. Take something as simple as a traffic light. You have a reasonable expectation that a traffic light is going to go through the rotation of Green-Yellow-Red, but that's not a certainty, it's faith-based as a result of your experience from driving and knowing how the lights are designed to work. Every now and then something different or unexpected happens: a light gets hung up on red; a light loses power; a light cycle is disrupted by an approaching emergency vehicle. But even with knowing this, we still refer to the traffic light cycle as a "certainty." There is nothing truly "certain" about it. Truth is, we don't know what influences are going to prevent that light from displaying what we think is going to be displayed next; we operate based on what we consider to be reasonable expectations based on our experiences.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Something that may interest you, blue.

Modern thinkers like to say that we advance our knowledge by "falsifying" theories. By hypothesizing something and testing to see if its true.

But this is absurd.

In their way of thinking, if you wanted to know the composition of the moon you would first theorize that it was made of, say, blue cheese and (somehow) "falsify" that and move on to a new theory, test it, and so on.

This is known among Objectivists as the "guess then test" theory.

First, how would you know what blue cheese is?

Then how would you know the results of your test?

How could you "falsify" anything?

How would you know what guess to make out of millions of possible alternatives?

Because you could tell by looking at it?

If you could do that, why don't you just use that method first and look at the moon.

Rand tells us how to do that, in principle.

Man is capable of error at the conceptual level, and he should test his theories.

But Rand tells us how to get that guess, which often turns out right the first time.

[Burke]

IPhone battery nearly dead.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Something that may interest you, blue.

Modern thinkers like to say that we advance our knowledge by "falsifying" theories. By hypothesizing something and testing to see if its true.

But this is absurd.

In their way of thinking, if you wanted to know the composition of the moon you would first theorize that it was made of, say, blue cheese and (somehow) "falsify" that and move on to a new theory, test it, and so on.

This is known among Objectivists as the "guess then test" theory.

First, how would you know what blue cheese is?

Then how would you know the results of you test?

How could you "falsify" anything?

How would you know what guess to make out of millions of possible alternatives?

Because you could tell by looking at it?

If you could do that, why don't you just use that method first and look at the moon.

Rand tells us how to do that, in principle.

Man is capable of error at the conceptu level, and he should test his theories.

But Rand tell us how to get that guess, which often turs out right the first time.

Nothing says straw man like dumbing down the inductive process by detaching it from pretty much the rest of 'science' in order to make a point. Kudos though for knocking down that straw man, anyway.

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by Burke

Something that may interest you, blue.

Doesn't interest me at all. What you're describing is called "hindsight," and as the saying goes: we see very well in hindsight. You're just throwing in some aspect of Randian agape to make it sound more legitimate, but at the end of the day it's as dumb as any other Great Idea.

So what does induction tell us about the mineral content of the area .5 km from the center of Jupiter's moon Titan? I mean, we can just "know" things, right? How was Mercury formed? How tall will the average alien species be?

Don't conflate philosophy with science - just don't. People who say "we can't know things with certainty" are describing a principal, not arguing philosophies.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Doesn't interest me at all. What you're describing is called "hindsight," and as the saying goes: we see very well in hindsight. You're just throwing in some aspect of Randian agape to make it sound more legitimate, but at the end of the day it's as dumb as any other Great Idea.

So what does induction tell us about the mineral content of the area .5 km from the center of Jupiter's moon Titan? I mean, we can just "know" things, right? How was Mercury formed? How tall will the average alien species be?

Don't conflate philosophy with science - just don't. People who say "we can't know things with certainty" are describing a principal, not arguing philosophies.

Well said, bluelang.

[Minister_of_Information]

[Burke]

Wes wrote,

"Take something as simple as a traffic light. You have a reasonable expectation that a traffic light is going to go through the rotation of Green-Yellow-Red, but that's not a certainty, it's faith-based . . . ."

This is a perfect example of a contradiction, and Wes doesn't have a clue.

Faith is belief without evidence, blind belief, belief that is not based on reason. Saying that it's not a certainty does not make it faith based. Aacknowledging that one had a reasonable expectation that the light will work and saying its all faith is nonsense.

And consider the additional contradiction: Wes claiming to know that sometimes lights fail. How does he know that with certainty?

Wes is claiming to know with certainty that one can know nothing with certainty.

Pathetic.

Aristotle must be rolling around in his grave.

Think I'll start a thread on this tomorrow.

G'night.

[Minister_of_Information]

And he'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

Faith is belief without evidence, blind belief, belief that is not based on reason. Saying that it's not a certainty does not make it faith based. Aacknowledging that one had a reasonable expectation that the light will work and saying its all faith is nonsense.

Faith means to have trust or confidence in something; "without proof" is an added qualifier but it doesn't really change the concept. But what is "proof?" Proof is simply a mechanism to establish that which we label "truth." What type of proof gives you 100% certainty of how the traffic light will respond when you get there? Or would you claim that you truth does not require 100% certainty? In mathematics, we use a proof to establish 100% certainty...anything short of that is not called a "proof." Successful iteration yields alone do not constitute a "proof."

Originally Posted by Burke

And consider the additional contradiction: Wes claiming to know that sometimes lights fail. How does he know that with certainty?

We can always claim a lack of information as truth. If we claim that we don't know something, and if we are being honest, then that claim is truth. The only possible exception to that claim being the truth is if we are lying about the claim that "we don't know something."

Originally Posted by Burke

Wes is claiming to know with certainty that one can know nothing with certainty.

Identifying what we don't know can be expressed with 100% certainty.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[MichiGator2002]

Randians operate on their own dictionary that is not constrained by any actual or constructive relationship to the English language the rest of us inherited from history. They use language sort of like an East Anglia climate model works -- "if we say certain key words mean this instead of what they mean, we can then assert ________".

[Gatormb]

So this is going to help you (and Ayn) explain how something came from nothing, blew up and became everything, how?

LD's quote of Rand does help explain your "active atheist" remark on another thread. Consistent.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Gatormb

So this is going to help you (and Ayn) explain how something came from nothing, blew up and became everything, how?

LD's quote of Rand does help explain your "active atheist" remark on another thread. Consistent.

One can be a practicing atheist for the simple reason that... it takes work.

[Burke]

Blue wrote,

"So what does induction tell us about the mineral content of the area .5 km from the center of Jupiter's moon Titan? I mean, we can just "know" things, right? How was Mercury formed? How tall will the average alien species be?"

Damn good question, actually, but not one you should expect me to answer in a thread devoted to refuting the stupid Problem of Induction.

But let me toss this in now.

Rand stated that all man's knowledge is founded on perception. And perception is absolute knowledge. Attempts to deny that are contradictions. (I've written about this here before and intend to start a new thread on it shortly.) She then goes on to show how percepts are integrated into concepts, which are themselves grounded in reality because she has defined similarity in her theory.

And I have gone on to see that all principles, scientific and otherwise, are created essentially the same way concepts are, by integrating percepts, which represent certain knowledge. Man is capable of error at the conceptual level because some things are very complicated and need to be tested. But you are not just guessing when you assert a decent theory, and I know why.

This is why I say that I have finally satisfied myself that man is capable of certainty.

Because all he is doing at each level is integrating percepts, which are certain knowledge.

Ask yousef this. Did Einstein really show that Newton's theories were wrong?

Or just integrate more perceptual knowledge into that which Newton had integrated?

But you have to understand Rand's theory of concepts to grasp this.

But if you go to the trouble of doing so, you will see why Objectivists think she is Aristotle's modern successor and possibly the most creative genius of all time.

Take it from me. She is DEFINITELY not just some pop philosopher who wrote a couple of best-selling novels.

A few hundred years from now, school children will know two names from the 20th century: Neil Armstrong and Ayn Rand.

And not necessarily in that order.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Burke

A few hundred years from now, school children will know two names from the 20th century: Neil Armstrong and Ayn Rand.

And not necessarily in that order.

Funny if weren't sad. Will she even be in the top two most remembered novelists of the 20th century?

Protested too much that she wasn't some pop philosopher. She is Hubbard or Heinlein, just with a different hustle.

Assuming that anybody a few centuries on thinks of the 20th century much at all, her best hope for top two would be "... authors named Rand".

[Burke]

Midgets sniping at a giant.