[JMartins]

I've started promoting Objectivism on one of the conservative messageboards, and would appreciate some assistance in formulating a convincing response to an individual who I believe may make a good student of Objectivism. He's been studying numerous philosophies, though is largely unfamiliar with Objectivism. I don't have a good enough grasp on the epistemology to make a convincing enough response to him yet, and I certainly don't want to make a flawed one. I'd appreciate any assistance on this one.

His post:

Quote

How does objectivism deal with scientific concepts of events or objects that by their very nature cannot be observed or measured? Also does objectivism compensate for issues concerning the potential inaccuracy of the five senses or is it assumed that the senses and the external data that they gather in for intellect and reason to process are always correct? As you can imagine I don't accept objectivism as a worthwhile philosophy for my life because it excludes too many avenues of discovery. It puts to many limits on lines of though and inquiry and when taking to its fullest potential it seems to be a child of nihilism something akin to atheistic existentialism. I may have misconceptions or a misunderstanding of the philosophy because I haven't delved deeply in to it but much of what I read I couldn't agree with.

This post has been edited by JMartins: 31 July 2008 - 01:41 PM

[khaight]

JMartins, on Jul 31 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

I've started promoting Objectivism on one of the conservative messageboards, and would appreciate some assistance in formulating a convincing response to an individual who I believe may make a good student of Objectivism. He's been studying numerous philosophies, though is largely unfamiliar with Objectivism. I don't have a good enough grasp on the epistemology to make a convincing enough response to him yet, and I certainly don't want to make a flawed one. I'd appreciate any assistance on this one.

I'm just tossing this out in a few minutes between other tasks at work, but here's my thoughts. First, Objectivism definitely takes the position that the senses as such cannot be in error. We draw a strong distinction between the form and object of perception, and between the perception itself and the conceptual identification of the information given in the percept. Let's concretize this by examining a standard perceptual illusion -- the stick in water. We look at it and it seems bent, but we know that it's really straight. Aren't our senses giving us incorrect information? No, they aren't. We are perceiving the identity of a particular part of existence, viz. a stick in water, and the form in which our senses respond to this identity is the perception of the bent-stick-in-water. The object perceived is the stick-in-water, and the form in which we perceive it integrates together multiple causal aspects -- the shape of the stick and the refractive index of the water. Our conceptual identification of the percept (which may be in error) is that the stick appears bent because of the effects of the water in which it is immersed.

Because the senses operate causally, they can respond in only one way to any given situation... the way dictated by their nature and the nature of the object being perceived. Since there is no alternative in how they respond, concepts like "error" do not apply. A perception can no more be mistaken than a chemical reaction or a rock rolling down a hill. For a further discussion of the nature of perception, perceptual form and perceptual judgement, see the first few sections of Chapter 2 of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism, or perhaps David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

As for how Objectivists deal with concepts of events or objects that cannot be observed or measured -- it depends on what is meant by "cannot be observed or measured". Aspects of reality which cannot be observed or measured perceptually must be dealt with by inference, using concepts which are themselves ultimately grounded in perception. We cannot directly perceive atoms, for example, but we know they exist based on a lengthy chain of scientific experiments the results of which are directly perceived. (See David Harriman's article on "Proof of the Atomic Theory" in the most recent issue of the Objective Standard for a more detailed explication of this.) If, on the other hand, the question is about concepts of events or objects that by their nature cannot be reduced to the perceptual level, then the Objectivist response is that assertions of the existence of such events or objects is arbitrary and illegitimate. On what basis can such events or objects be claimed to exist? By definition we cannot have sensory evidence of them directly, nor can they have any causal connection to anything else that we can perceive and use to infer their existence conceptually. Such things cannot be identified either through the senses or through reason based on the senses, and there are no other legitimate means of obtaining knowledge about reality. Objectivism rejects faith, innate ideas and speculation absent evidence. The only "avenues of discovery" that are epistemologically legitimate are the senses and conceptual inductions and deductions based on the senses. Anything else is just making stuff up, and while that can be fun as entertainment it isn't a path to knowledge.

I can't really respond to the questions about Objectivism being a "child of nihilism" or a form of "atheistic existentialism" other than to note that, yes, it is an atheistic philosophy. I don't find it nihilistic because it takes a very strong value orientation. Life matters, values matter, happiness matters, morality matters. That's the opposite of any form of nihilism.

Wow, that came out longer than I intended. Back to work!

[brian0918]

JMartins, on Jul 31 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

I've started promoting Objectivism on one of the conservative messageboards, and would appreciate some assistance in formulating a convincing response to an individual who I believe may make a good student of Objectivism. He's been studying numerous philosophies, though is largely unfamiliar with Objectivism. I don't have a good enough grasp on the epistemology to make a convincing enough response to him yet, and I certainly don't want to make a flawed one. I'd appreciate any assistance on this one.

His post:

With regard to the first question, I would first ask him what concepts he is referring to. Just as your senses are simply perceptions of physical phenomena - your sight is the perception of light of varying frequencies, your hearing is the perception of air pressure gradients - and your measurement of those phenomena lead to the construction of concepts, so can you form concepts by understanding physical phenomena (ie, the equations) and extrapolating from indirect measurements.

[Starling]

Khaight, that was such an elegant answer, especially while "between tasks!" Bravo!

[tps_fan]

I only have time to give a partial answer, but hopefully this will give an indication of the direction to take when responding to the quoted post.

While there are specific aspects to point out, the other person's argument rests on the fallacy of begging the question.

"How does (O)bjectivism deal with scientific concepts of events or objects that by their very nature cannot be observed or measured?"

On the surface, he's invoking a self-contradiction. If something can be considered an "event", then it _already has_ been identified in some way. That identification may not be fully satisfactory, but an interest in requesting further information about an event is not to be treated as an intellectual ransom note. e.g. "Explain this fully (without reasonable benchmarks) or else... you're discredited, making a baseless assertion, etc." Likewise, only that which can be sensed is to be taken seriously. If an actual event can't be identified without contradiction to already existing knowledge, then that event is arbitrary and to be held at bay until further related information is discovered.

This person appears to be attempting to undercut the power and sole province of reason. Again, this person is attempting to appeal to the arbitrary as something to be seriously considered. It's illogical to request proof of negation for a supposed concept that lacks grounding. Just because something can be devised in fantasy does not mean that it should be pursued as something with real implications.

"Also does (O)bjectivism compensate for issues concerning the potential inaccuracy of the five senses or is it assumed that the senses and the external data that they gather in for intellect and reason to process are always correct?"

This is a false alternative which is of the same type of fallacy as begging the question. The senses are functionally automatic e.g. no one has to stop and think "Now I will focus my eyes to some specific mathematical degree..." A person must exercise effort to direct the senses in a general and non-technical way, but what really must be judged is a person's interpretation of data gathered from his senses. It's in the area of interpretation where people can make mistakes (or even form outright lies if they know better.) Now, if it's established that the viewer has sub-standard sensory ability e.g. he's partially blind, then that tempers _his ability and his evaluation only_. (It doesn't reflect on another person's ability to perceive....)

Objectivism does not compensate in the fashion that the poster suggests because it's neither possible nor beneficial. There aren't any means of extra-sensory perception, so Objectivism asks a person to make use of the senses which he actually does have.

The question that the poster begs is "How _is_ knowledge possible?", and I refer interested parties to the first several chapters of _O:PAR_ for detailed elaborations.

[khaight]

brian0918, on Jul 31 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

With regard to the first question, I would first ask him what concepts he is referring to. Just as your senses are simply perceptions of physical phenomena - your sight is the perception of light of varying frequencies, your hearing is the perception of air pressure gradients - and your measurement of those phenomena lead to the construction of concepts, so can you form concepts by understanding physical phenomena (ie, the equations) and extrapolating from indirect measurements.

I think this is wrong. We don't see light waves. We see objects by means of light waves. If you say that we don't perceive entities, but only their effects on us, you are using a representationalist model of perception instead of a direct realist one. Representationalist theories of perception fail. See Stephen Hicks' dissertation on Foundationalism and the Genesis of Justification for a good discussion of why.

[brian0918]

khaight, on Jul 31 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

I think this is wrong. We don't see light waves. We see objects by means of light waves. If you say that we don't perceive entities, but only their effects on us, you are using a representationalist model of perception instead of a direct realist one. Representationalist theories of perception fail. See Stephen Hicks' dissertation on Foundationalism and the Genesis of Justification for a good discussion of why.

I think I was unclear. When I referred to the measurement of those phenomena, I meant measurement with equipment built according to our understanding of those phenomena (the equations, such as for the refractive index of water).

[FeatherFall]

I'd suggest that you be very careful to respond to epistemological questions only you know exactly what is being asked.

Regarding the validity of the senses, a diplomatic response will explain that:

1) The senses are valid and do not "make mistakes"
2) As fallible beings, our interpretations and integration of the information gained by the senses can be mistaken due to a lack of focused attention, difficulty in identifying differences in similar sensational effects, interference in brain chemistry, etc.
3) Objects for which evidence must be inferred are distinct from objects for which there is no evidence. In the latter case, no knowledge is possible until new means of gathering evidence is found. Until direct or inferred evidence is found, the proper epistemological position regarding claims of knowledge about such objects is to reject each claim as arbitrary.

I don't know much about Nihilism and Existentialism, but I'd address his point by explaining that Objectivism sets human life as it's moral standard, thus rationally affixing to reality the pursuit of value and moral conduct between humans.

[John Kintaro]

"Wikipedia on Nihilism" said:

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following:
Objective morality does not exist.
No action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another.
In the absence of morality, existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal.
There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator.
Even if a higher ruler or creator exists, mankind has no moral obligation to worship them.