About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan Hawking:

"Better a good writer trust most readers to draw the most likely intended meaning from his or her words. Good writers, those with an ear tuned to the language, will achieve that. "

Actually a good writer can achieve a great deal more than that.  When I was teaching writing back in the '90s, I used to tell my students to write, rewrite, and revise what they wrote until an adequately prepared reader would find it impossible to mistake their meaning.  This can be accomplished.  In that sense, Michael Stuart Kelly is quite right to insist on the possibility of using language with precision.  What he seems to overlook, however (at least, he never comes out and says it in so many words), is that precision in language is culture- and time-specific.  It is possible to communicate in words with impressive precision so long as one is addressing people who read the language one is employing and people who are living in the same time and culture as the writer.  Language is a spontaneous order.  It changes constantly.  This is why, as Mr. Hawking notes, the "English" of a thousand years ago is a virtually incomprehensible foreign language today.

On the other hand, I can't entirely agree with Mr. Kelly's somewhat simplistic view that "[a] writer needs to know what he/she wants to say. . .then choose how to say it. Precisely how to say it."  Anyone who has done much writing, particularly of books or longer articles or essays, knows that part of the process of writing is discovering what one wants to say.  As one writes, one suddenly realizes that X, Y, or Z tidbit of information (or idea A, B, or C) -- often something one has known for years but had not previously seen as relevant to one's current purposes -- would fit in perfectly right here, at this precise spot in the manuscript (though, of course, once one puts it in there, one has to deviate from one's outline and allow the remainder of the manuscript to develop as it must, given the infusion of unexpected information).  Writing is less a matter of exact and extensive planning, followed by a precise carrying out of the plans, than it is a process of improvisation within a relatively loose and malleable structure.

JR
.


Post 21

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff:

Hard to get away from this forum, isn't it? Even for those of us who have promised ourselved a couple of days off from writing but obviously have NO self-discipline <blush>.

If you have some (meta)ethical beliefs/hypotheses/theory that is radically different from any ever thought of before, I can only hope you don't keep us in suspense too long.

I, for one, (and I've given the subject as much thought as all but perhaps 1% of those living, I'll wager) can not imagine a radically new one coming along.

But, I'm willing to be wrong.

 

I never know who has already thought of what, Jeff. I leave that for others to worry about. If I gave that much concern, I'd never have the energy to think! LOL

As for keeping you in suspense, I still have a couple of minor holes to fill in--weeks, more likely months. But the radical part is pretty much a done deal. Can't get much more radicaler. LOL

Nathan


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 8:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you're claiming there is no 'nature of man', then you're claiming there is no nature of any living organism - which is to say, you're claiming there is no identity.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 9:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you so much Robert Malcolm for clarifying what I have been trying to point out all along.

Nathan did not accept my definition of man and did a whole post on "I'm waiting" as if that were some way to cover his complete misunderstanding of what I am saying by "rational animal."

The concept "man" does not need to include the precise moment an embryo is somehow "converted" from a potential into an actual. The embryo is already one part of the concept. The difference between a 2 year old human and a chimp is that a 2 year old human child will become an adult human being if it lives and a chimp never will become a human anything. A human embryo already is a bond fide human being, just undeveloped at that stage. Terri Shaivo is not anything other than a damaged human being. I could go on and on, but this gets very tiring.

I find it frustrating to discuss things with Nathan because his discussion is not a discussion of anything at all really, just word plays, completely and constantly missing the point and going off in a myriad of tangents. When pressed to the wall to prove and define, he states that all language is vague, no definitions of essentials (like physical/nonphysical) are possible, that no specific "human nature" exists, or counters with a request for you to prove and define so he can go off on his tangents of counter accuse double standards and so forth. He is completely unwilling to establish any other premises except constant vagueness, so I have finished discussing with him.

Time to reread ITOE and breathe a breath of fresh air. Let concepts grow from the five senses and grow through integration. Let them become as precise and vague as needed as they grow. Let them be able to be precisely understood and taught to others.

When concepts are developed to a complex extent, say the nature of the materials of a spaceship (built by human beings according to human concepts), they better be understood precisely in the design or the thing will cave in and kill the astronauts out in space. Not much room for vagueness there.

Basically, as Ayn Rand has shown so brilliantly, precise thinking is the hallmark of productive rationality. So there is one thing I will keep on arguing. Human beings do have a precise nature as "rational animals." Rand brilliantly broke down "rational" (among several others) and so many zoologists and biologists have broken down what the human "animal" is qua animal (mammal and so forth) that I do not need to do this.

Jeff Riggenbach, it might be time for us to smoke the peace pipe. So here is a comment or two. 

I did mention both the culture and time elements you talked about. You can find this a couple of times if you have the patience to wade back through the previous posts on this thread. A word of advice, though. Skip the overly long dissections of my posts as the sheer number of tangents in them get you sidetracked (and I find them mind numbing). You gave these elements a slightly different slant here, that's all.

My point is that words may change but the concepts, if they existed previously, do not. I gave the example of "chair," which has existed as an identical concept through different cultures for a long, long time, but has had many different words to symbolize it. To tip my hat to you - of course, there are culture-specific concepts. The words for them do not translate well without a good understanding of the culture they came from, and it is not easy sometimes to find a proper expression for them.

On the point of a writer being able to choose precisely how to say something, this does not negate the type of writing experience you mention. I was arguing against the position that one can never be precise. That is patently false. One can. As you stated, discovering what and how to say things is a very exciting and enjoyable part of writing. However, this is not the only way. My own writing varies in this respect. If I am writing about something I am very familiar with and have covered before, I take into account whom I am addressing and practically put it out very precisely all at once, slanted to that audience. If I am struggling with an new idea or concept or method or whatnot, I love the discovery way and use it a great deal. I also revise a lot. Revision is especially useful and necessary to arrive at - can you guess it? Here it comes... Ta daaaaaaa!

PRECISION.

//;-)

Michael


Post 24

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 10:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate: “I'm not sure that "absolutely precisely" was the best word choice for Rand here, but neither is such a measurement "approximately" between 1mm and 2mm-- it is between 1mm and 2mm.  Approximately would mean that you aren't quite sure that's it's between 1mm and 2mm…”

Hi Nate. You’re talking through your hat again. Yes, it's true that 1.2 mm is between 1 and 2 mm. It's also true that it's approximately or somewhere between 1 mm and 2 mm. So are 1.5 mm and 1.7 mm. The “approximately” refers to the range of measurement between 1 and 2 mm, not the state of one’s mind.

Therefore, one can be as certain as necessary that 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7 mm are between 1 and 2 mm. On other matters, you can be somewhat certain, almost certain, more or less certain, but you cannot be approximately certain. Language may be flexible, but it cannot be stretched beyond certain the limits of its meaning.

Brendan


Post 25

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff R.:
Nathan Hawking:

"Better a good writer trust most readers to draw the most likely intended meaning from his or her words. Good writers, those with an ear tuned to the language, will achieve that. "

Actually a good writer can achieve a great deal more than that.  When I was teaching writing back in the '90s, I used to tell my students to write, rewrite, and revise what they wrote until an adequately prepared reader would find it impossible to mistake their meaning.  This can be accomplished.  In that sense, Michael Stuart Kelly is quite right to insist on the possibility of using language with precision. 
I'm forced to disagree with you.

People even argue over the nuances of passages of a writer as skilled as Hemingway. I've participated in HUNDREDS of discussions about various stories, including some of my own, and am regularly astonished at the number of ways people can interpret words.

I'm afraid my experience simply doesn't support your assertion. Good writers get close, but no writer is beyond being misunderstood or insufficiently understood by some readers.
What he seems to overlook, however (at least, he never comes out and says it in so many words), is that precision in language is culture- and time-specific. 
On the contrary, I think he did. We both noted that.

It is possible to communicate in words with impressive precision so long as one is addressing people who read the language one is employing and people who are living in the same time and culture as the writer.  Language is a spontaneous order.  It changes constantly.  This is why, as Mr. Hawking notes, the "English" of a thousand years ago is a virtually incomprehensible foreign language today.
Yes, and that is why SOME people will not use language exactly the same way you or I do at any given moment. If your claim that we could make it "impossible to mistake" our meaning, language would not be evolving--it would be static.
On the other hand, I can't entirely agree with Mr. Kelly's somewhat simplistic view that "[a] writer needs to know what he/she wants to say. . .then choose how to say it. Precisely how to say it."  Anyone who has done much writing, particularly of books or longer articles or essays, knows that part of the process of writing is discovering what one wants to say.  As one writes, one suddenly realizes that X, Y, or Z tidbit of information (or idea A, B, or C) -- often something one has known for years but had not previously seen as relevant to one's current purposes -- would fit in perfectly right here, at this precise spot in the manuscript (though, of course, once one puts it in there, one has to deviate from one's outline and allow the remainder of the manuscript to develop as it must, given the infusion of unexpected information).  Writing is less a matter of exact and extensive planning, followed by a precise carrying out of the plans, than it is a process of improvisation within a relatively loose and malleable structure.
That's quite true. I write nonfiction as well, and writing good nonfiction involves just as much art and improvization as fiction.

But I don't think Michael was suggesting that we sit down sure of everything we wish to say a priori. He's done enough writing that's he's aware of spontaneity and crafting on-the-fly. I think he just meant that there are optimal words for our ideas, even if he overstated (in my view) the case for precision.

Nathan Hawking


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Back to basics. Dictionary time - Merriam Webster online:

Man 1 c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole representative of a natural family (Hominidae); broadly : any living or extinct member of this family
Notice that to the dictionary writers the time/development concept of being engendered, birth, growth and death is automatically included in the concept of man by using the words "interbreeding" and "extinct" in the explanation and broad usage. They build their higher concepts by integrating them with other concepts.

Michael

Post 27

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 1:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert:
If you're claiming there is no 'nature of man',
I'm not. Each human has a nature, which will vary from human to human. And most humans have many things in common with other humans.

What I said was that there is no "the" nature of "man" (humankind). That's very different.

Is, for example, human nature "heterosexual"? Yes, mostly. But many humans are bisexual, homosexual, asexual, or transgender.

So, what is "the" sexual nature of humankind? The only correct answer is that there's no precise definition of human sexuality possible in those terms.
then you're claiming there is no nature of any living organism - which is to say, you're claiming there is no identity.
No, every existent has a nature and in that sense an identity.

The question revolves, not around whether things have an identity, but how precisely we can define that identity:
  • Michael's claim is that precision is generally available in language descriptions.
  • My claim is that relative precision is only available for simpler entities, such as chairs, but that for complex entities, such as humans, precise expression of a verbal definition is often impossible.

His inability to define "human" demonstrates the truth of my assertion.

I'll illustrate using someone else's example, color:

Just as most of us can easily identify humans and differentiate them from other species (a fact made easier by the fact that a closely related species, Neanderthals, died out 29,000 years ago), most of us can summon a clear image when we see the word "red."

But define red. Where, precisely, is red light no longer red but infrared? Where, precisely, in the shorter wavelengths, is red light no longer red but orange? What is the "precise definition" of red?

Any precise definition of a spectral phenomenon like human nature or the color of light will entail arbitrary distinctions and arbitrary boundaries.

So, to summarize, things have their nature, whether we describe them or not. The issue is how precisely we can DESCRIBE that nature.

In general, we do very well, well enough to be understood most of the time. But words have their limitations, and it's a fitting subject for philosophy to discern and acknowledge those limitations.

Nathan Hawking


Post 28

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 1:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan:

I prefer to be called Nathan, please.

Nate: “I'm not sure that "absolutely precisely" was the best word choice for Rand here, but neither is such a measurement "approximately" between 1mm and 2mm-- it is between 1mm and 2mm.  Approximately would mean that you aren't quite sure that's it's between 1mm and 2mm…”

Hi Nate. You’re talking through your hat again.

 

Well, one of us is. And since I did not write the words you are attributing to me, draw your own conclusions.

Yes, it's true that 1.2 mm is between 1 and 2 mm. It's also true that it's approximately or somewhere between 1 mm and 2 mm. So are 1.5 mm and 1.7 mm. The “approximately” refers to the range of measurement between 1 and 2 mm, not the state of one’s mind.

If you'll check post 17 and take the time to discern who actually said what, you'll find that I agree with your position, even if not your manners.

 

Nathan Hawking

 


Post 29

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 2:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:


Back to basics. Dictionary time - Merriam Webster online:
Man 1 c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole representative of a natural family (Hominidae); broadly : any living or extinct member of this family
Notice that to the dictionary writers the time/development concept of being engendered, birth, growth and death is automatically included in the concept of man by using the words "interbreeding" and "extinct" in the explanation and broad usage. They build their higher concepts by integrating them with other concepts.

I read dictionaries too, Michael. Sometimes I even write them, so I know the drill. You imagine that you've "precisely defined" man or human. If so, the following should present no problem:

*Where, in the course of developing from embryo to six year old child, does an organism become a human being?

You won't be able to answer. Further, let us dismantle your M-W definition and see if it actually contains any genuinely defining characteristics:
  • Bipedal: Some are born without legs. Are they not human?
  • Primate: There are many nonhuman primates.
  • Mammal: There are many nonhuman mammals.
  • Anatomically related to the great apes: All the great apes are anatomically related to the great apes.
  • Notable development of the brain: Neanderthals, apparently a different species, had larger brains. Some Homo heidelbergensis had larger brains than some modern humans.
  • Articulate speech: Some have no power of speech. Are they not human? Some parrots have genuinely articulate speech (NOT just mimicry). Are they human? Many animals use extensive human sign languages--are they human?
  • Abstract reasoning: Many have less abstract reasoning ability than some primates and birds. Are they not human? Are the aforementioned animals human?
Michael, you may instruct me on how concepts are built if you wish, if you honestly believe I have an insufficient grasp of the subject. (I suspect my grasp of Objectivist views on concepts is more substantial than you know, but suit yourself.)

But what you cannot do is take what you believe is a "precise" definition of humanity and apply it to difficult real identificatory problems in the real world, such as the one I posed above.

Teaser: Humans have ONE AND ONLY ONE genuinely defining characteristic, and it's not listed in my breakdown above. $1 SOLO Faux-bucks to the first person who spots it!
 
Hint: Knowing this will not solve problems of identification such as the one I posed above at *.

Yes, underneath this calm, intellectual exterior lies a dark and evil heart. Or an imp. Your choice. LOL

Nathan Hawking 


Post 30

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 2:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:
Nathan did not accept my definition of man and did a whole post on "I'm waiting" as if that were some way to cover his complete misunderstanding of what I am saying by "rational animal."
LOL Yes, that's such a difficult concept.
The concept "man" does not need to include the precise moment an embryo is somehow "converted" from a potential into an actual. The embryo is already one part of the concept.
I see. You are therefore opposed to abortion at any stage of fetal development, then, considering them "human."

Is that correct?
The difference between a 2 year old human and a chimp is that a 2 year old human child will become an adult human being if it lives and a chimp never will become a human anything. 
So you believe that the Catholic Church is correct in their ethical stance that a fertilized egg is "human" by virtue of its POTENTIAL to become a fully developed human being, and you would therefore be opposed to aborting a fertilized egg?

Is that correct? 
A human embryo already is a bond fide human being, just undeveloped at that stage. Terri Shaivo is not anything other than a damaged human being. I could go on and on, but this gets very tiring.
So you would be opposed to the abortion of an embryo or the termination of life support for someone whose brain is 90% missing because you define both as "human"?

Is that correct?

[Personal remarks snipped.]
When pressed to the wall to prove and define, he states that all language is vague
That's false. That misrepresent both my views and my behavior.
no definitions of essentials (like physical/nonphysical) are possible
That's BLATANTLY false. Shame on you.
that no specific "human nature" exists
That's false.
counters with a request for you to prove and define
Oooo, that IS evil. We shouldn't ask for proof or definitions.
so he can go off on his tangents of counter accuse double standards and so forth.
Ad hominem remarks. Shame on you. The last resort of a failed argument.
He is completely unwilling to establish any other premises except constant vagueness,
That's false. My assertion was VERY clear:
  • It was that precise definition in language is often impossible.
  • I asked you to prove your denial by precisely defining a specific term.
  • You were unable.
  • That's not vagueness I established--it's damned clear: language is often not a precise tool.
so I have finished discussing with him.
Your choice. But face it, the reason isn't for the falsehoods you've listed. 

And if you do decide to have discussions with me again, I hope you take more care to truthfully represent my views. I have little tolerance for persistent misrepresentation, unintentional or otherwise.

...
When concepts are developed to a complex extent, say the nature of the materials of a spaceship (built by human beings according to human concepts), they better be understood precisely in the design or the thing will cave in and kill the astronauts out in space. Not much room for vagueness there.

Basically, as Ayn Rand has shown so brilliantly, precise thinking is the hallmark of productive rationality. So there is one thing I will keep on arguing.

LOL I do hope you won't soon be claiming that Nathan Hawking says humans are drooling brutes with skulls full of mush, incapable of hurling rocks across a river.

Some of the notions you're falsely attributing to me are not far removed.

Lest you misrepresent me again, I did not say precision was not possible. Clearly it is, in varying degrees. But not universally so.

Nathan Hawking


Post 31

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 3:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan: “If you'll check post 17 and take the time to discern who actually said what, you'll find that I agree with your position, even if not your manners.”

And if you check post 16 you’ll see that my comment was addressed to Nate T. I’m glad we agree though.

Brendan


Post 32

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 4:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan:

Nathan: “If you'll check post 17 and take the time to discern who actually said what, you'll find that I agree with your position, even if not your manners.”

And if you check post 16 you’ll see that my comment was addressed to Nate T. I’m glad we agree though.

 

I did that and can see that I was mistaken.  My apologies.

Nathan



 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 7:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan,

I won't claim to be able to answer in the required detail or clarity, but I have a few responses/questions I would like you to consider.

"Where, in the course of developing from embryo to six year old child, does an organism become a human being?"

I rephrase the question as follows:
Jeff's version: "Where, in the course of developing from human embryo to human six year old child, does the human organism become a human being?"

In that form, the answer is obvious.  (Perhaps you view this as cheating.)

However I recognize that at a certain point of development it becomes very much harder to settle the question.

 It seems something like this is what MSK is striving for on that particular question.

I agree with you that borderline cases, spectral issues, etc make the theory harder to apply and represent a challenge. I'll take up that challenge later.
---------------------

"Teaser: Humans have ONE AND ONLY ONE genuinely defining characteristic"

I'm not certain, but I suspect that to make that claim plausibly, one would have to be omniscient. (That is, if you mean one which will, for all time and in all contexts differentiate humans from all other existents.)

After all, (valid) definitions are human tools for classifying existents, not identifications of Platonic forms, and therefore the defining characteristic can validly change with the growth of knowledge. No?

Perhaps you mean, within the body of our current knowledge you have identified one and only one which is not shared by any other kind of thing.  (That would be insightful.)

This again smacks of, forgive me I mean no insult, Platonism. Concepts, and by extension definitions, are a human method for classifying existents. I don't see why they should be required to allow us to pick out (one and only) one (or even a small set of ) characteristic(s) before being valid. If definitions are to be useful, the characteristics can't be too vague or too numerous or the concept/definition loses value of course. But a concept can validly be defined differently for, to use a much overused phrase, different contexts. No?

Nathan, you do keep the conversation lively!


Post 34

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 8:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Brendan.

Yes, this might get confusing, with the two Nathans and all.  Lets' be sure to stick with the Nate/Nathan distinction.
You’re talking through your hat again. Yes, it's true that 1.2 mm is between 1 and 2 mm. It's also true that it's approximately or somewhere between 1 mm and 2 mm.

"Somewhere between 1mm and 2mm" and "Approximately between 1mm and 2mm" are not the same thing.  You're trying to smuggle in uncertainty by conflating the two.

I'm not disputing the fact that you don't know where between 1mm and 2mm the length is-- but you do know with certainty that it lies in between the two. If you don't have the ability to say that, measurement is not possible.

So are 1.5 mm and 1.7 mm. The “approximately” refers to the range of measurement between 1 and 2 mm, not the state of one’s mind.

But the range is not approximate.  The range is known with certainty, and can be known with certainty.  That's the point.

And nowhere have I ever said that the length of an object depends on the state of mind of the measurer, given the choice of a suitable unit.

Therefore, one can be as certain as necessary that 1.2, 1.5 and 1.7 mm are between 1 and 2 mm. On other matters, you can be somewhat certain, almost certain, more or less certain, but you cannot be approximately certain. Language may be flexible, but it cannot be stretched beyond certain the limits of its meaning.

Certainty is an epistemological context and therefore requires a context.  Here, the context is the length of the unit you are using to measure.  It's the conflation of context with uncertainty that I'm trying to combat here.

Nate T.




Post 35

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff:

Always good to read your posts.

NH: "Where, in the course of developing from embryo to six year old child, does an organism become a human being?"

I rephrase the question as follows:

Jeff's version: "Where, in the course of developing from human embryo to human six year old child, does the human organism become a human being?"

In that form, the answer is obvious.  (Perhaps you view this as cheating.)

 

LOL Perhaps too obvious for me to understand.

Jeff, I THINK I know what you're driving at. Perhaps it's what I mention at the end of this post.
I agree with you that borderline cases, spectral issues, etc make the theory harder to apply and represent a challenge. I'll take up that challenge later.
OK


"Teaser: Humans have ONE AND ONLY ONE genuinely defining characteristic"

I'm not certain, but I suspect that to make that claim plausibly, one would have to be omniscient. (That is, if you mean one which will, for all time and in all contexts differentiate humans from all other existents.)



 

Knowledge is required, but not omniscience.
After all, (valid) definitions are human tools for classifying existents, not identifications of Platonic forms, and therefore the defining characteristic can validly change with the growth of knowledge. No?
In general, I agree with that.
Perhaps you mean, within the body of our current knowledge you have identified one and only one which is not shared by any other kind of thing.  (That would be insightful.)
LOL Please don't overthink this. It is really not that profound. Since you've been such a good sport and indulged me, I award you the $1 SOLO faux-bucks and will divulge my answer by the end of the post.
This again smacks of, forgive me I mean no insult, Platonism. Concepts, and by extension definitions, are a human method for classifying existents.
Plato-monger! LOL

Generally, I don't have any quarrel with Objectivist formulation of the nature and value of concepts, Jeff. I'm actually rather fond of it.
I don't see why they should be required to allow us to pick out (one and only) one (or even a small set of ) characteristic(s) before being valid.
The nature of definitions and concepts is, of course, a fairly involved study, probably too much for either of us to tackle at the moment. Suffice it for now to say, though, that a dictionary definition is only useful if it allows us to distinguish the defined A from NOT As. For many purposes a M-W-style definition such as Michael quoted is entirely adequate. At other times it is not.
If definitions are to be useful, the characteristics can't be too vague or too numerous or the concept/definition loses value of course. But a concept can validly be defined differently for, to use a much overused phrase, different contexts. No?
That's probably a long discussion. I'm sure we mostly agree on these issues.
Nathan, you do keep the conversation lively!
Oh, stop! You've already got the SOLO buck!

OK, my answer to my TEASER:

So far as I know, the only characteristic which is truly DEFINING of humans is our genetic lineage.

Put another way, some evidence suggests that all modern humans descend from a group of about 2,000 individuals as recently as 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Alternate hypotheses posit some possible interbreeding between hominid lines, but this is uncertain. (Apparently, Neanderthal DNA indicates that we did not interbreed with that line, which existed in parallel with Homo sapiens until 30,000 years ago.) But the principle nevertheless applies.

What, that's it?  I'm afraid so. Pretty skimpy as a defining characteristic, a tautological 'humans are those who descended from the line Homo sapiens.' That's what distinguishes us.

Not bipedalism, or primacy, or mammalhood, or brain development, or speech, or reasoning. We, as a group, have a couple of those in degrees not attained by other extant animals as a group, but that is not defining.

It could be far worse. It is an accident of nature that the bigger-brained Neanderthals did not survive--other than skeletal morphology and possibly-speciated genetic differences, we may not have been able to distinguish them, in business suits, from some modern humans.

So THAT, as I see it, is our truly defining characteristic. You were on the right track, I think, when you observed that it would be a "human embryo" growing into a "human child." Obviously human from that perspective all along the developmental line.

But when does it become a "human being," one whose life ethically demands protection under law? Lineage does not answer that question, any more than bipedalism or other dictionary definitions.

Thus my claim that words have limitations to their precision.

If any persuadable reader still has doubts as to the limitations of language, let them try to draft laws for consideration by legislatures. Considerable precision is attainable, but we lose our smugness when courts of appeal vacate laws for vagueness, as they regularly do.

Nathan Hawking


Post 36

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate T:

I'm a little confused by who's saying what, but do have a couple of comments.

Brendan wrote:

You’re talking through your hat again. Yes, it's true that 1.2 mm is between 1 and 2 mm. It's also true that it's approximately or somewhere between 1 mm and 2 mm.

"Somewhere between 1mm and 2mm" and "Approximately between 1mm and 2mm" are not the same thing.  You're trying to smuggle in uncertainty by conflating the two.

 

"Somewhere between 1 mm and 2 mm" COULD mean > 1 mm and < 2 mm, or it could mean 1 mm through 2 mm. See below.

 

"Between 1 mm and 2 mm, approximately" could clumsily include, for example, .95, 1.05, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1, etc.

 

 

I'm not disputing the fact that you don't know where between 1mm and 2mm the length is-- but you do know with certainty that it lies in between the two. If you don't have the ability to say that, measurement is not possible.

So are 1.5 mm and 1.7 mm. The “approximately” refers to the range of measurement between 1 and 2 mm, not the state of one’s mind.

 

 

But the range is not approximate.  The range is known with certainty, and can be known with certainty.  That's the point.

 

And nowhere have I ever said that the length of an object depends on the state of mind of the measurer, given the choice of a suitable unit.

 

Here is a dandy example of imprecision in language:

 

"Between 1 mm and 2 mm" can mean two different things, depending upon the meaning of "between."

 

"Between" can either include the boundaries or exclude them.

 

"Pick a number between one and ten" might properly result in the number ten being selected.  (It is not true that "among" is the "correct" usage.)

 

Asking what integers lie between 1 and 10, though, and the answer will likely be '2 through 9.'

 

This sort of double-meaning ambiguity is the kind of imprecision which context can help resolve, as in the two sentences above. But in a legal context this is what results in "fine print."

 

In an engineering context, "between 1 and 2 mm" would usually be interpreted as inclusive.

 

Nathan Hawking 

 


Post 37

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 4:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate: “But the range is not approximate.  The range is known with certainty, and can be known with certainty.  That's the point.”

The range is between 1 and 2 mm, and yes, that is a specific range. But let’s take another look at the original quote: “AR:... you can always be absolutely precise simply by saying, for instance: "Its length is no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters.”

When Rand uses the term “absolutely precise” here, is she talking about the specific measurement (its length), or is she talking about the range (no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters”)? I strongly suspect she is gaining illicit mileage by leaving the referent of  “absolutely precise” ambiguous, although no doubt you will have a more benign explanation.

Brendan


Post 38

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert:

I was scrolling through the thread again, and it struck me how ironic your post is. I mean this in NO way as mockery or disrespect--indeed, I responded fully in another post.

You said:
If you're claiming there is no 'nature of man', then you're claiming there is no nature of any living organism - which is to say, you're claiming there is no identity.

The irony which occurred to me is that much of this thread is about how easily words can be misunderstood, how subtle they can be, and how some will inevitably mistake our meaning.

Nowhere, of course, did I assert that "there is no 'nature of man.'"

That you could take my rather carefully worded statements that way illustrates exactly what I was saying: that no matter how hard a writer tries, it is always possible--inevitable, given enough readers--to be misunderstood.

This does not, of course, relieve us of the burden of striving for precise (in my sense of the word) communication.

Nathan Hawking


Post 39

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nathan,

"Somewhere between 1 mm and 2 mm" COULD mean > 1 mm and < 2 mm, or it could mean 1 mm through 2 mm. See below.

  ...

"Between 1 mm and 2 mm, approximately" could clumsily include, for example, .95, 1.05, 1.5, 2.0, 2.1, etc.

Correct.

Here is a dandy example of imprecision in language:
...

 

That's right-- if the language is unclear or the context hasn't been adequately specified, you can resolve the ambiguities by using other words (inclusive/exclusive), as you've done here very well.

Brendan,

When Rand uses the term “absolutely precise” here, is she talking about the specific measurement (its length), or is she talking about the range (no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters”)?

She is referring to the range-- after all, the subject of the "absolute precision" here is her statement that "It's length is no less than one millimeter and no greater than two millimeters."

I don't see how you can read "Exact Measurement and Continuity" charitably and conclude that Rand takes the certainty of the range and applies it illicitly to the exactness of the measurement when she repeatedly states that there is no such thing as infinite precision in measurement.  Why conclude what you have spent several pages arguing against?

Nate T.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.