Certainty and the Problem of Induction

[Burke]

Whatever it is it is and it cannot at once be other than that.

Right?

[WESGATORS]

Ok, but if it is a combination, then it is a combination. The law of identity does not prevent the object from having multiple purposes. Where are you going with this?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Yes, but if it is a combination it cannot at once not be a combination .

Right?

(Getting a little nervous?)

[WESGATORS]

The fact that you thought what I wrote was a contradiction should hopefully force you to evaluate how quickly you jump to conclusions about what another is writing. As it turned out, I didn't post anything contradictory, you just didn't understand what I was describing. Now in fairness, I don't put that all on you, but part of the communication process allows us to ask each other what we mean without having to jump to conclusions.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

Yes, but if it is a combination it cannot at once not be a combination .

Right?

(Getting a little nervous?)

Nervous about what? I'm watching the baseball game too, so I guess I'm a little nervous if that's what you are referring to: http://asun.neulion.com/asc/console?id=5039&catId=18

It may be a combination-capable device that is only being utilized for one of its functions. If it is being utilized for multiple features then it is being utilized for multiple features...if it isn't, then it isn't. Are you getting nervous? (that was not a good inning)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Originally Posted by Burke

Yes, but if it is a combination it cannot at once not be a combination .

Right?

(Getting a little nervous?)

Don't dodge the question.

[WESGATORS]

If by "it is a combination" you are referring to it's capability of being potentially used for multiple purposes, then yes, if it is capable of being used for multiple purposes it cannot simultaneously be incapable of being used for multiple purposes. If you mean something else, please clarify.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

The law of identity holds that A is A.

As a corollary of this Aristotle stated that A cannot be non-A, which is his famous law of non-contradiction.

You admitted that a chair is a chair, but you refused to admit that it cannot at once be something other than that.

That's because you inderstand that if you ever do, you will no longer be able to engage in contradictions as you do.

But congratulations, the last guy wouldn't even admit that a chair is a chair.

Got real defensive. Told me I was "insecure."

He was afraid to even admit that a chair is a chair and I was the one that was insecure!

G'night Wes.

[WESGATORS]

The term "chair" can have multiple interpretations, that's why it is necessary to break it down by function (especially when the intention seems to be to try to catch somebody in a contradiction...it's really important to be clear about what each person is referring to). So when you ask is a chair a chair? The answer is "yes" but when you break it down, you have to be careful that you're not asking if a chair (definition 1) is a chair (definition 2)...because that would be misleading.

Anyway, and as I've mentioned before, let me know if you see anything that I've posted that is contradictory. Still not sure where you were trying to go with all of this (who said a chair is not a chair, and did they mean what you think they mean?).

I've answered your questions as best I can, and I've asked for clarification where I noted the potential for ambiguity. I don't think you're insecure, I just think that maybe you struggle to get your ideas out in an effective manner (heck, we all probably do from time to time), but you really seem to have some ideas that you want to get out there...I'm just trying to understand them better.

Good night.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Take a look at a chair, Wes.

It is what it is.

Right?

And it's not something other than that?

Right?

[Burke]

I had three children, all now grown, two older ones and a third unplanned "surprise" who was at one time the baby of the family.

They would sometimes make a mess, and their mother would get angry and demand to know who was responsible. The two older kids would blame the baby.

Well, the baby caught on to that crap FAST. She would quickly blame the older ones, and their mother would tend to believe her because she was just a little baby.

Their mother and I eventually caught on to that, though, and I realized that I was going to have to explain to her what a lie was and that lying was bad.

So I got her in my lap one day and pointed to a chair and said, "See that chair." She said, "Yes, daddy." And I said, "If I said that's a chair, that would be the truth. But if I said that's not a chair, that would be a lie, and you should never tell a lie." Afterward, if I thought she was fibbing about something, I would say, "See that chair." Even today, if my now 35 year old daughter seems to be less than forthcoming with me about something, I will say, "See that chair."

Wes and I have just been having a conversation something like that, but instead of giving me a straight answer or an outright lie, he is admitting that a chair is a chair and then trying to find a way to say that it can still be something else at the same time.

This is known as trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Which is what a contradiction is.

[WESGATORS]

Having your cake and eating it too is hardly a contradiction...it's called "greed."

Burke, I know what the intent of the proverb is, but the fact is you've substituted my comments for an analogy which does not apply to what I said. If I stated a contradiction, you could identify it by quoting where it exists. You still have not done that. A "conversation something like that" does not qualify for the substitution you have made.

Ask your daughter if that image I posted shows "a chair or a bookcase" and see how she responds.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Wes,

I've made it as plain as it can be made.

A baby could understand it.

You have chosen to blind yourself to it, because you don't want to be bound by logic.

For some reason, you don't want to be taken to where logic takes people.

My suspicion: religion, progressive thought, or both.

[WESGATORS]

Burke, you still have yet to identify incompatible concepts that I have presented. Again, the quote function is useful in this regard. You can't just grab a block of text and say "that's a contradiction" be more specific and articulate your point so I can know what it is that you find to be incompatible.

Why don't you try to play the role of question answerer (after all: fair = fair)...

Suppose it were possible for me to show you a genuine circle to the point where I truthfully claimed that the circle contained only points that were equidistant from its center and you rightfully believed the claim to be true. We would both be confident in expressing that such a presentation would consist of a circle.

Now, suppose I modified the circle such that the horizontal diameter was increased by 10^(-15)%, but the vertical diameter remained unchanged. I then honestly express to you the change that was made; and you believe me and accept the change as fact. Would you still call this new object a circle?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Whatever it is it is regardless of what we think or even if we exist.

And it cannot at once be other than that.

The concept change is a derivative concept that presupposes identity and is irrelevant.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Burke

Don't dodge the question.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Lawdog88]

The essence of Burke's perception, is the embalmed essence of Ayn.

The polestar of his ultimate identity, to whom he owes all loyalty, fealty, and adoration.

Without whom he would be nothing, and could not trade with the other boys and girls.

Sad.

[Burke]

(The following several replies are somewhat technical. I'm posting them just to be complete.)

Rand's solution to the problem of universals has two essential points:

1. Her identification of what similarity is, and

2. Why and how we choose to integrate perceptions at all.

We are swamped with perceptual data. One look out the window at the vast array of things we see coupled with the realization that we are doing this for hours each day for years on end leads to the additional realization that we are inundated with it.

Couple this with the fact that our senses are physical entities responding to physical stimuli that yield certain knowledge, and you can see that our problem is not that we are incapable of knowledge but that we are flooded with it.

We condense that vast amount of knowledge into concretes that we can handle mentally. Those concretes are concepts and principles.

If we see a few birds on a power line, we may be able to tell how many are there without counting, which is what other animals can do somewhat. But if there are more than a very few, we must count them. When we count, we are moving from the perceptual level of the other animals to the conceptual level. Numbers are concepts, and the other animals cannot form concepts as we can do.

The whole purpose for the formation of concepts and principles is to condense certain perceptual knowledge into something we can grasp mentally.

We integrate things that are similar for this purpose.

(To be continued)

[Burke]

Similarity, according to Rand's theory, is the relationship between two or more existents that possess the same characteristic(s) but in different measure or degree. And they are integrated into units, which are similar existents.

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s) with their measurements omitted.

Rand contends that similarity among existents can be perceived. She contends that all existents are measurable either with cardinal numbers or ordinal numbers. One does not have to be able to actually make the measurements, only perceive that they are measurable. She gets into this inure detail in her book.

(An "existent" is just anything that exists: entities, attributes, actions, ... anything."

(To be continued)

[Burke]

Definitions:

The purpose of a definition is to identify the nature of a concepts referents, to allow one to distinguish them from other things. It's crucial to understand, however, that a definition is not the meaning of a concept. The meaning of a concept is what it actually symbolizes in reality. The meaning of "tree" is every actual tree that exists, that has ever existed, and will ever exist. The definition of "tree," for e.g., helps you identify trees from other things, but the actual trees are what the concept means.

Definitions (properly) have a genus and a differentia. "Man" was said by Aristotle to be a "rational animal." That is, he belonged to the genus "animal" and the thing that differentiated him from other animals, the differentia, was his capacity for reason, that is, rationality.

But definitions can and do change as our perceptual field and knowledge grow.

Suppose a rational alien with two heads and the body similar to an animal showed up. As he would be a rational animal also but otherwise very different from men, we would have to alter our definitions of man.

(To be continued)