NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/philosop/objectiv/1046

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 6.9 KB | 137 lines

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Christopher M Zeller)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:04:01 GMT
Lines: 125

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Bill Conner) writes:
>    I don't deny that logic is a useful tool, but I question its
> ability to discern Truth. Everyone uses logic, some more effectively
> than others, but logic can't guarantee its conclusions. The best we
> can expect from logic is the discovery of evidence that might,
> eventually lead to a working hypothesis. The connection though is
> indirect and not at all necessary (in a logical sense).
>    What we fail to include in our logical formulae is our own
> preferences; what we -want- to be true.

    I think that you misunderstand the whole Idea of logic. The main
purpose is to eliminate the very bias that you speak of by taking
ourselves out of the picture. If we ourselves don't exist in our thesis,
then our desires, and the bias that they lead to won't exist either.

> Our desire for a particular
> outcome (or the avoidence of same) is as much a determinant in what we
> discover as that which we claim to study. Every decision is subjective
> by its very nature, and every logical conclusion is a decision.

> A
> conclusion whether logical or otherwise is really the decision to
> stop looking for alternatives and is therfore, premature.

    I don't think that anyone here (especially objectivists) are
interested in stopping their serch for the answers. That is precisely why
objectivists are so adament about free speech. We encourage challenges,
but if certain statements are logically derived, assuming that their
premisis upon which their logic is based is correct, only by overturning
those premisis, can they be proven untrue. (i.e. it is unlikely that
Newton's laws will be overturned, however they were ammended whith the
discovery of quantum mechanics.)

>    Objectivists seem to believe that their reliance on logic is, in and
> of itself, sufficient to give them credibility, it isn't.

    You are right about this one. Simply stating that they rely on
logic doesn't give anyone credibility. But the best thing about logic is
that if done correctly, it leaves a paper-trail. So if you doubt someones
conclusions you can ask for their proof, and they will show you. If you
still find a problem with it, you can show them where they went wrong,
and, assuming that you can logically prove them wrong, then both of you
can agree. Much the same way that you show your work in math class, or
provide your data and calculations in a scientific paper.

 As a matter
> of fact, their insistence on the validity of logic to the exclusion of
> everything else, makes them seem simple minded. Real people are a
> complex of perceptions, subordinating every intellectual and sensual
> attribute to logic ignores the fullness of being human.

    What makes you think that there is a difference between the world
around us and ourselves. Or do you think that we are all the result of
some higher power and posess these powers ourselves. Our thoughts don't
define the universe. It is there wether we like it or not. 2+2 always
equels 4. We may see it any way we want, but that doesn't change how it
IS.

>    Objectivists sre enamoured of Science, thinking that past successes
> mean something. The ability to create 20th century Science existed
> even before civilization, it's just that people lived by a different
> set of possibilities.

    No one CREATES science. The universe IS, we just discover it.

> There have always been brilliant minds,
> genuises, our generation has no significant margin in that regard,
> it's all more aquestion of emphasis than value. To define ourselves by
> the current state of Science is ridiculous, evrything channges.

    The fundemental laws of the universe don't change. What we think
they are does, and therefore we must always be on the lookout for new
answers as long as they are correct. Objectivists are not simple. The
universe just isn't as complicated as it first seems once we admit that
are preceptions of the universe aren't controlling it.

>    Your reference to Quantum Physics may not be as cogent as you
> believe. Physics of whatever variety, has become very adept at
> describing observed events, but it's still not entirely certain that
> they -understand- what they describe.

    Hold that thought, Bill, we are still serching for the unified
field theory.....If you seriously want all the answers to all the
questions of science NOW, then you had better forget it all and start
making them up yourself. It simply won't happen. But we ARE trying......

    An engineer on the other hand,
> has to know exactly what is required, hunches won't cut it. Who would
> you rather have build a bridge, an engineer or a quatum physicist?

    When was the last time you have ever heard a physicst mistake a
hunch for reality. Physicists compose THEORYS. The very name, theory,
admitts that it is not fully proven YET. Over time, those theorys MAY
become law. Physicists know the difference between knowing exactly what is
and a hunch. It's the general public that doesn't. Besides, where would
the engineer be if it weren't for all the laws that physicists discovered
in the first place.

>    Science suggests possibilities, engineers test and exploit the
> possibilities; again a question of emphasis. I don't mean to denigrate
> Science or exalt Engineering, my point is that, in both cases, logic
> is a fundamental element, but in neither case is humanity fully
> defined.

    Here you go again. Why do you continue to assert that the laws of
science are fundementally different from the questions of humanity?


>The resort to Science that is so typical of Objectivists,
> simply dodges the very issues they claim address, namely, what is a
> person, how does he relate to others, what are his obligations (if
> any), and what sort of society best conforms to his nature ...

    Bill, science and logic offers our best hope for solving these
dilemmas. That way. the solutions CAN come from nature and the universe
itself, and NOT the fundementally biases of human thinking. Otherwise you
could make the point for anything you want and I would have no way to ever
prove you wrong. In such a case, there would be no answer to "person, how
does he relate to others, what are his obligations (if any), and what sort
of society best conforms to his nature ...," no use for philosophy, and no
sense even discussing it. That is the purpose of logic and I think I'll
stick with it.

                     Chris Zeller