Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:01 Okay. Yes. Um, thanks to everyone. And, um, uh, the topic today is objectivity, which is a huge topic in philosophy, uh, with applications in every branch, from physics to victimology, to ethics and politics and aesthetics. Um, and even within metaphysics and epistemology, it's, you know, it has somewhat different meanings that we can't cover all of them today. What I wanted to do is, uh, uh, talk about the meaning of objectivity as a trait, a personal crate. And, um, let me, I'm going to start by telling you a story. Um, when I taught logic college logic advisor, um, years ago, um, I, I had a section on definitions. I would teach the students that a proper definition has a genius. And differentiae the gene as being a wider class that a concept belongs to. And the differentiate of being a essential crates that distinguish that classic things from, uh, everything else in the genius.
Speaker 0 00:01:18 So we did a bunch of exercises and the culminating one, which was my favorite. Uh, I asked him to define the word objective, and when the students recovered their breath at this massive, which seemed like a massive task, I was asking them, we just got started. I said, look, just bear with me. Um, what is the genius of objective? What kind of objectivity, what kind of thing is it more we're talking about that someone would say, well, you mean it's out there and reality, like objects, you know, objective facts are objective reality, I'd say, yeah, that's one. Meaning I want to focus on the way in which the trait of a person who's objective. I mean, you know, when you take an exam, you're hoping that I will be objective in grading it and not, you know, your preference to, um, get a rash and, you know, an objective preference to some students over others. Um, so let's talk about that.
Speaker 0 00:02:35 All right. What's the opposite. What are we contrasting it? Uh, objectivity with well-being obviously being subjective. Okay. That was easy. Do these terms apply to physical crates? Like strength or the heartbeat or something? No. Um, Mr. Kelly, their mental things they have and specifically of what kind of metal things. Well, I guess we're talking about thinking cognitive stuff, right? Yeah. Right. Okay. Next question. Those, you mean the same thing as being correct is doesn't mean the same thing as Kruth can a person be, for example, a objective and be trying to find out what, what the truth is, but not haven't found it yet, or even maybe getting to a bad inclusion, but on rational reasons. Okay. Yeah. So what, that, that we have our genius, it's a cognitive commitment, uh, to a certain kind of process of thinking. Great. Now let's talk about the differentiae what's the opposite.
Speaker 0 00:03:55 You said it's subjective before. Okay. What does that mean? Um, like bias or someone who's prejudiced or it's just very emotional and not thinking clearly. Okay. Right. That's good. So what's the difference between what makes someone objective as opposed to being subjective? Someone will always, almost always say, well, it's the consensus because census is, you know, someone says something and others can verify as true and re with it. Okay. That makes it objective. Uh, well, can the majority be biased going to be prejudiced? Uh, I guess so someone else will say it means disinterested. It means calm on emotional disinterested Dr. Spock, like, well, could you be, could you be really interested in the topic and have a lot of you really, really want to find out what's going on? Well, okay. You don't have to be calm necessarily. Someone will say how about being logical?
Speaker 0 00:05:17 That would, that was a round nosing, um, suggestion, because they were in a logic course. I was teaching. Um, yeah, I would say, but you know, sometimes a paranoid can seem very logical or conspiracy theory. What's the difference. And finally, we would get to, you have to want to grasp the facts and you have, you have to be seeking it logically. Yes. But you have to want to grasp the facts. So conclusion, object it. So I would summarize their, their reflections. And I would say so I'm sure Kimberly means a commitment to finding the truth.
Speaker 0 00:06:02 It's a feature of the process of thinking that involves that commitment by using rational methods, like actively seeking relevant information remaining open to new evidence, putting aside distorting factors, subjective factors, like wishful thinking, et cetera. Yeah. That's it sounds easy. Right. Only few of the undergraduate students in that class had taken any other philosophy, but just by thinking about the question with a little Socratic help from me, they come up with a better definition than most philosophers. Uh, and I always took great pleasure in this because, um, my colleagues in the philosophy department, um, the other faculty would, uh, some of them were dead set against, uh, the whole idea of objectivity. And here were my students, you know, coming up with a good definition of a highly abstract, um, concept. So they, they really took pride in it. And, um, as I say, it made me happy, but the issue of object understanding, uh, in this sense, because it's harder as we go deeper.
Speaker 0 00:07:27 Um, the definition makes it clear that objectivity involves both a choice and a skill. The commitment to finding the truth is the choice, the ability to use rational methods. However, is this skill. And I'm going to say a little bit more about each, um, each side of that duality. I am going to start with this skill and just to put this in a larger context, there's a lot we could say about objectivity and, um, Objectivists including myself have written a lot about what's wrong with the attacks, many attacks on objectivity. But my goal today is, is to drill deeper into what it is that objectivity is, um, regardless of what anyone thinks about its possibility. That could be a great another topic. And in fact, um, I'm wanna point you, uh, if you want to pursue the issue two, um, two sources. One is, um, Steven Hicks, who I see on the wall today, uh, has a very nice paper.
Speaker 0 00:08:46 Um, you'll find it. If you go to our website and look at the staff page, the scholars page and his, his bio. And, um, he has an article, um, on objectivity or actual people that I, I highly recommend. And also if you go to our, um, the outlist intellectuals page, the landing page for Apolis intellectuals, you will find, uh, and drill down and scroll down a, but you will find a whole section on objectivist. That includes a ton of material objectivity, but let's let's so that's just background let's, uh, I want to start by talking about the method of objectivity the methods and the skill. Um, I mentioned earlier, well, it means, you know, uh, actively seeking relevant information remaining open to new evidence, et cetera. Um, and that's, that's a good starting point, but, um, let's, let's drill a little further down epistemology and the piss, a lot of this more, uh, Pismo logical analysis of how knowledge, um, what constitutes knowledge and the cognitive capacities that we have, um, proceeds in stages, the basic, the Sage that is, uh, the perception of objects in our environment, from which we then noting similarities and differences.
Speaker 0 00:10:28 We've formed concepts, uniquely human capacity and concepts for categories of things like tables and chairs or features of things like their color, their shape, their size. And then at a certain point, we begin, we are able to put our concepts together into propositions that make a statement about reality, either true or false, the goal being to get through ones, um, that involve depict starting with applying the concepts that we've formed to the new things that you receive. But we also use a logical processes like induction to infer general conclusions about causality fire burns, um, around ball roll, et cetera. And then we also use deduction to apply those general crews once and learn to, um, uh, to, to, to new instances. And beyond that, we, uh, formulate theories to explain the generalizations that we've seen through hypotheses and testing by experiment often about a political entities that we cannot perceive like Adams and so forth.
Speaker 0 00:11:55 So it's a process, um, and there are certain principles in the objectivist mammalogy that govern the process. One is to keep track of the hierarchy, all the conclusions have to Chris back ultimately to observations the observations we make every day in our lives. And the experimental observations we make when we're testing the hypothesis, um, reception is the ground floor. It's not just the starting point for baby or child. It, it is, uh, uh, epistemology recapitulates, uh, uh, uh, ontogeny here because the, uh, even once we've acquired a massive body of knowledge, what makes that knowledge has to be graced back to our perceptual awareness. We're also another principles that we're not, I'm efficient. We're not infallible, that's the nature of knowledge. And so we need to continue in inquiry when there's evidence that you need more evidence, which is often the case. We have a hypothesis that we've tested partially, but we haven't tested, um, um, other aspects of it, or we haven't tested other factors that might be causative realm. And there's also the importance in thinking of distinguishing between what we know for sure what we're confident of and what only probable, what needs more evidence. This is sometimes called metacognition. So awareness of how you're doing in the cognitive process of discovering facts,
Speaker 0 00:13:54 So that that's, that's a capsule summary of the objectivist. The victimology, um, is not unique to objectivism, but it's, uh, it's certainly a piece of it, but let's go even a little further beyond the general standards that apply to all knowledge. There are specialized methods used in biology, chemistry, astronomy, or any other branch of science.
Speaker 0 00:14:26 Think of the techniques, think of those techniques that you have to learn in graduate school, in those sciences, and by being an apprentice to those who have mastered them again, think of the methods that our lawyer has to learn in order to, to research the precedence, um, that are relevant to a case, how to prepare a brief, um, and presented to in a trial, how to write a contract that will survive litigation. Think of the techniques for project management that enable example builders to build skyscrapers. That's a huge undertaking involving many, many people, and it has to be organized in some way and project management techniques and put in very soon as get it software now, um, makes that, uh, makes possible what, um, you know, makes it possible for us to build on a scale. We couldn't move forward. And project management applies to so many different fields I could go on and on, uh, into medical research. And, but I hope you get the idea.
Speaker 0 00:15:37 These specialized methods are themselves products of knowledge. That is we didn't, we're not born with them. And the philosophical systemology, doesn't it indirectly applied them. These are methods that were involved by people in specialized fields who, um, uh, learned new ways of doing things and incorporate them incorporated those insights into their methods to achieve, um, more sophisticated, more advanced knowledge. Now, no one could master all these methods. It would be impossible and we can't make the impossible, right? You're a requirement for objectivity, but I think we can require as part of the virtue, um, more ritual of objectivity, which I get you in a minute, we can require that people learn and exercise the basic methods of concept formation and definition, basic, uh, methods, um, logical inference, um, some awareness of the fallacies that we can, um, uh, that we're subject to and need to avoid like ad hominem and so forth.
Speaker 0 00:16:57 And we can also expect people to have some degree of metacognition that is some way of assessing whether they actually know something as opposed to merely believing or imagining wishing it to be true. That's that is the, um, I think there's a base level of objectivity, but even in the advanced more technical methods, which, you know, specialists use those methods and techniques were evolved and applied for the sake of objectivity to discover the truth, do develop rationality in, um, in, uh, specific, detailed, technical way that addresses the particular, uh, realm of reality they are addressing. So this is, uh, th this is a huge part of, of, of just mammalogy is to understand those methods and also of logic, um, and of, um, um, branches like the sticks and, um, you know, all the methodology courses that you take in almost whatever field you are doing, um, majoring in or working in. And I don't, I don't just mean academic fields. I mean, any field of practice, I mentioned law project management, there are many, many others so respect or those methods and commitment to using methods as needed and learning the methods as needed is a part of what we mean by objectivity.
Speaker 0 00:18:47 So that said, let me just, um, somewhat more briefly address the other side, um, the other main distinction, the choice that commitment, that commitment means recognizing that reality is, but it is, regardless of what we think would feel about facts are facts as a choice on the objective is you objectivity is an exercise of free will a voluntary choice, the secret. So in that respect, objectivity's not just a technique or method. It is a moral virtue. It's a core Emma, a core element. And fact of the virtue of rationality, which is the fundamental virtue and the objective is ethics and the opposite choices, the failure to make that commitment are, there are many such things, and most of them will be from, uh, those, those, to those of you who have read brands, novels, or, um, some of the psychological words find it, then your branding and others, um, there's evasion blank out.
Speaker 0 00:20:01 The idea won't be real if I shut my mind to it, or reliance on non rational methods like emotions, faith, and authority, because objectivity's too scary or whatever, there is the Andy conceptual mentality, which doesn't even try to function, uh, on a truly conceptual way, but treats concepts as memorized words or, um, on creates these rejections of objectivity or willful, they are vices that are, you know, in contrast to the virtue of being objective. Um, but I also want to know this is my final point, um, that objectivity can be compromised by cognitive and those biases often operate below the surface of conscious awareness control. So the question of do what extent they are voluntary, uh, or reflect, um, voluntary, um, amendments is tricky. Uh, I do believe, uh, that they can be, um, uh, I mentioned confirmation biases. This is a huge, uh, uh, a large, um, field of study and saying psychology, uh, confirmation bias is the best known and there are others.
Speaker 0 00:21:29 Um, the point is, is that they're not fully voluntary, but they can be countered by voluntary actions, including methods. So cognitive biases are interesting, um, uh, phenomenon because they involve both getting to a point where you can choose not to be confirmation bias or any of the others, but they also involve the, the methods of proctoring them are themselves methods. So they involve both the positional and the methodology methodological aspect. Um, and I'm going to that. That's going to be my subject in the clubhouse I'm doing next month, April 28, cognitive bias. So I, um, I'm happy to take questions on that point, but, um, remember that we've got there's more to come down the road, so that's, um, let's open to questions.
Speaker 2 00:22:30 Terrific. Thank you, David. Um, I've also asked my colleague Lawrence to help me be a moderator because I have not a great connection here. Um, I want to acknowledge on the stage, uh, some of our other faculty professor Jason Hill, professor, Stephen Hicks, uh, professor Richard Salzman. I know we also have Rob <inaudible> in the room, though. He, uh, is, is listening at the moment he's, um, caught up in something. Uh, I wanted to let everybody know the paper that David referred to I've, um, put it in the pinned link. So, um, if you want to check it out, do so now, because I'm going to be replacing that with, uh, David Kelly's booklet, the seven habits of highly objective people. I'd love to ask those of you who are here. Um, please share this room. You can do it with the button at the bottom of your screen. You can share it, um, on clubhouse, share it on any other social media platform you're on. Um, Steven, thanks for sharing that. And, uh, Jason, do you have, uh, some flections on what David shared?
Speaker 3 00:23:47 Uh, yes. Thank you very much, David. And, um, I ha I do have one question. Um, it seems that the question of objectivity on one respect seems a little bit moot, um, on Ron's account of objectivity, given the fact that for Rand awareness of existence, um, is perceptual and perception is she claims that awareness of existence is first perceptual and perception is infallible. So one of the things that I think distinguishes ran from Aristotle is that Aristotle is a biological essentialist, and Rand is an a pistol epistemological, essentially someone I teach her, her book introduction to objectivist systemology in conversation with Aristotle's Organon and more particularly the posterior analytics. We always, the students that I always get into this big thing about what's the difference between a biological essentialist and epistemological essentialist. And some of them think that ran sort of falls on the side of a lightweight nominalist, but I wanted to ask David more particular if because I've always had a problem with this idea that ran does share with Aristotle, that perception is, has a built-in infallibility clause to it, which already safeguards objectivity as a method.
Speaker 3 00:25:29 Right? So David was talking about methods. So, um, my sense is what proof do we have? I think rant treats it, treats it almost axiomatically that objectivity perception is infallible. And I want to know David's thoughts on this, because that seems quite problematic to me, if perception is infallible, I do, I do think that you can't prove that exists existence exists, that that that's an Axiom true. But to say that awareness of existence is perceptual, which is true. And then to make the move, that perception is infallible seems a little bit more legwork is needed. I don't see where perception itself is infallible. I know she shared this with Aristotle and I've always had a little bit of a problem, um, unpacking that kind of assertion. So, David, can you help me out a little bit as someone who's very, very, very familiar with ransom systemology and Aristotle's the Organon, can you help me out here?
Speaker 0 00:26:47 Um, yes, I think so. Um, it it's a big topic and I dealt with it at some length in, uh, one of my books, the evidence of the senses, but I would put it this way when we, what, what are the roots of the concept of fallibility? It means capable of error. What is an error? It is a misrepresentation of reality, but perception doesn't represent reality. It is what we see, what we hear will touch. Uh, the experience we get is not separate to volition, and it is the causal result of the interaction between our sense organs and the objects, objects, and objects, things in the environment. And it is we see whatever that combination dictates causally, so to speak, um, whatever results from that interaction between our, our perceptual capacity and the world outside the air, you have to find what is the first level, which error is possible.
Speaker 0 00:28:05 And I would say it's only at the level of, um, the perceptual judgment. When I say, you know, I, I looked at the use of classic example, the stick that looks bent in water because of refraction. I look at it and I say, oh, it's bent. Um, that's a judgment. It is not a direct perception of what I actually see is, you know, what, what you could draw on a diagram, there's a stick in a glass of water. And, um, it, there appears to be advent. The appearance is what it has to be given optics, given the nature of light and the stick and the water and fraction, et cetera. There's no, it can't be wrong. It just is what it is any more than, um, you know, your heart can be wrong and skipping a beat. If you know, you have a heart murmur, whatever it is that just happens. We can say, you know, these things are not, um, it won't be called illusions like this one, um, you can be described as, or in a sense are, um, problems in our interaction with the world as is the heart murmur. They don't serve our lives and we, we find solutions to them, but the heart murmur itself is not,
Speaker 0 00:29:45 I'm sorry, I have my windows shut, but on a busy street in downtown DC. Um, but the ambulances, fire trucks and everything going by, I hope that's, um, that's over now. Um, the heart murmur is not a, it's not a show that the heart is fallible, that concept, and that statement makes no sense. And I would say the same thing is true of calling up reception fallible or infallible. It is, is it is what it is. Bell ability has to be connected with the concept of error, um, versus truth. And that applies only at the conceptual level. Um, even the simple conceptual level, when I say all the stickers back, it looks bent and from that, and that's perceptual phenomenon, but when I formed the concept, want to use the concept bench to apply to it, I'm wrong. And we quickly learned, this is such a trivial example. No, one's full by anymore, but, um, Fallibility exists only where there's an issue of truth or falsity. And I think that applies only to judgements statements propositions. I take it that that is the essence of what Randon and I think Aristotle, you know, there was none of that, but I, I think that's the essence getting at,
Speaker 3 00:31:13 But briefly, briefly, David, there could be some sort of cortical. I mean, w when we perceive, we perceive with our senses and there could be any kind of, um, um, aberration or some sort of, um, let's just say, say where we're looking at something, and there's some sort of cortical oddity that is going on with, uh, the sense of sight and, um, or we're touching something or we're smelling something. And there's some sort of, um, malfeasance with our olfactory, um, apparatus. It does seem to me that, um, there can be some way in which we properly misperceive reality because of the, um, intrusion of, um, something quite abberant in, in, in our, in our sense, sense perception. And those have to be taken into account because there are, those are not there's are not even, um, exceptional cases. There are many ways in which there are any number of us who are walking around with compromised senses or, or in which our senses are compromised and we misperceive things in the world.
Speaker 3 00:32:35 Um, so, um, I don't know, I still, I'm still having, except in the fact that perception is infallible because that would then presuppose that the manner in which we perceive the world, which is through our senses, um, themselves come built in with a kind of infallibility disposition or orientation. And this seems to me that that rules out all sorts of ways in which, or, or, or sense apparatuses, if that's, uh, if I'm not committing any grammatical Infor infelicitous here, the plural of apparatus, I don't know what that is, but are themselves deeply compromised in many ways?
Speaker 0 00:33:24 Well, it certainly is certainly possible for, uh, factors to, um, interrupt distort or, or distort, um, the operation of the proper normal operation of the senses, the proper operation of residences, which have evolved in order to give us, uh, fine grains, um, awareness of a world with a certain range of, uh, visual, uh, uh, look for magnetic energy. Tactal, whatever energy wise to touch, um, chemical, uh, uh, the chemical senses taste and smell. These things can be, um, are subject to a well known, um, phenomenon. Like, you know, you're out in the sunlight and you come into a room and it seems very dark. Whereas if you were, had been in the room in your office all day, all day, it would seem, you know, normal illumination that's that's, that is an adjustment that, um, evolution has provided us with the save our eyes from burnout.
Speaker 0 00:34:38 Um, and they accommodate, they adapt that's actually, that happens to be a very positive adaptation, but it can lead you to make a wrong perceptual judgment. If you come out from the right sunlight and walk into a room and say, oh my God, turn on the light. It's, it's almost midnight in here. Um, that's a judgment though that the, the, the terms that we w that are properly applied to reception in terms of evaluating, it would be in like, um, think of going to an eye doctor and looking at the eye chart. Can you read this line? Yes. Okay. How about the next one? Okay. There's a degree of specificity, um, in for every sense individual case. It is, um, what are the smallest units you can detect and discriminate? Um, even kind of a tricky example, because the eye chart, you have to name letters, which is a conceptual faculty, but anyway, it's testing your eyes. Um, if the doctor that the abdominal ophthalmologists then puts, uh, drops in your eyes and, um, you're not going to see as well for a while. Um, cause you pupils will be enlarged. That is, um, but you're still seeing what you're seeing with whatever degree of specificity you can. Specificity is a feature that is properly applied to the senses. And I think it's fundamental, essential feature, but it doesn't meet through the positive if I can't, if I'm you're sighted and can't see you, it just means <inaudible>.
Speaker 0 00:36:32 So this is a complicated issue, Jason, and a lot more we can say, but
Speaker 2 00:36:38 All right, well, we have about 20 more minutes and a lot of people on the stage, I'd love to get more of the audience involved. Um, so please, uh, folks raise your hand, we'll bring you on up. Um, and, uh, we have, wow. We have, uh, almost our full faculty here. Um, there's one and to Nella is had to leave the room, but, uh, uh, Steven or Richard or Rob, did you want to weigh in?
Speaker 6 00:37:10 Well, David I did, this is Richard. I did this as interests. Very interesting. I did want to ask quickly. I have noticed lately that, um, in recent years there has been greater attention to biases, prejudices, categorizing them, which, which I think is a good thing, but, but do you, like, I notice that it is sometimes used to undergird skepticism, so it's, it's a good thing in the sense that you want to not make logical mistakes, but I wonder if it's being used instead to say we can't escape these biases and when the lists proliferate and you can find them anywhere on the web, all the ways you can go wrong. Um, I wonder whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing and, and, and a related question, uh, knowing the laws of logic in a positive sense is central, I would think to objectivity. But to what extent do you think also should be studied the fallacies? I think if I'm, unless I'm wrong, Aristotle not only as the father of logic, but listed and explained the, the major fallacies as well. Do those need as much attention as the rules of logic to, to get this right? That's my question. Thanks, David.
Speaker 0 00:38:28 Okay. Quickly, um, on your first question about cognitive biases yes. That has been used by skeptics, uh, and, uh, people who are hostile to objectivity. Um, but that, that is a, uh, exercise of huge, bad faith because there are there, they are relying on the, the cognitive bias literature is based on a lot of experiments by psychologists and others. And if we're all biased, then those scientists are biased and we can't trust their results. Maybe they're just, you know, talking about, uh, confirmation bias cause they they're subject to it. And they're just reaffirming their own expectations in their so-called experiments that that's a self-refuting proposition. Um, in, I should say in, um, the art of reasoning, the fifth edition that, um, I came out a year and a half ago with my co author, uh, Debbie Hudgins, we added a chapter on cognitive bias and that's a point that we make upfront.
Speaker 0 00:39:37 There's an issue about how difficult it is to counter these things. And that's a balance issue, I think, but to say that, that they, um, are, um, disabling like any attack on objective knowledge, it relies on some kind of objective knowledge, um, who established it, I'd say, you know, I'm not subjective bias. Oh yes, you are David. Well, prove it. Well, gang economy has shown in this research that, um, I said he showed, he found an actual result about human cognition. Is that true? Okay. If it is, then it, it only confirms that there is a proof and that we can find it. Um, so that's, that's my short answer to the first question. The second question about fallacies, I would say is it's a difficult subject. Um, you know, I've my, my look on logic is in the fifth edition now, you know, did the first edition back in, um, the late eighties and every logic book, a comparable one has the chapter of fallacies its most popular, um, most, most used chapter in almost any book and partly because students love it.
Speaker 0 00:41:16 Um, they get to, uh, learn about it. I'm going to excuse her peers or their parents. Oh yeah. That's an ad hominem argument. Um, but the, um, I think these are useful and as the more we know about ways thinking can go wrong, the better our chances of having it go. Right. And so, um, the important thing is getting a right by the methods of observation logic, the normal, this module standards. But, but because precise because knowledge or conceptual knowledge is valuable, um, knowing the ways that we can fail, um, is extremely useful in the same way that in medicine knowing the ways the body can, um, be subject your disease or injury, um, helps us maintain our health better. Thank you, David.
Speaker 2 00:42:23 All right. Um, we have professor Hicks and Rob Sinski. I don't know if either of you had wants to weigh in
Speaker 8 00:42:34 If I can talk, uh, uh, Jen, uh, Jake, uh, I think there's kind of a commonality between those last two things about the perception and that the quote unquote fallibility of perception. I like the point by the way that that perception isn't really fallible or infallible, that, that doesn't really apply to perception. It just, it just is. But I think with, with both the fallacies thing and, and, and, uh, I just, I'm working on a review of Steven Pinker's recent book on rationality, cause he's been in the thick of all this cognitive bias kind of stuff. And he actually, I think he does a good job of making the point that, you know, the, the cognitive bias thing has been over done that people delight in, pointing out all the ways people can get things wrong. And the point is actually that we can, we can get things right, and that the point of identifying cognitive biases so that we could avoid them and actually get the right answers and not.
Speaker 8 00:43:22 So we can basically say the human mind is totally messed up and can't can't do anything. But I think, I think in both cases, you know, there's that iron rods argument about the stolen concept there, that the only reason we can identify something as a cognitive bias is that is by comparison to knowledge, we have that's, that's not biased. That's correct. Uh, and the only reason that we can identify, um, a perception as distorted is by comparison to the majority, you know, to, to the general normal rule of our perception, which is that it's, it's giving us an accurate, uh, uh, information about the world. Um, but what I wanted to add is I think also that in the issue in talking about objectivity, I think that it comes up to this issue of, of perception. And the way I think of view perception is that it's causal, not that it's fallible or infallible, but that it's caught A solid ground
Speaker 8 00:44:27 Oh, from which students, and to make inferences is that there's evil demon deceiving you in there, that it is a cause and effect relationship. And then your job as a thinker is to figure out what is that cause and effect, relationship and sort that out. But I also think that may apply more broadly to the question of objectivity that objectivity really is about grasping that between reality and knowledge, there is a cause and effect sequence that you have to follow and objectivity is, is grasping that there is a cause and effect sequence, and then figuring out what it is and making sure that you follow it. So that's just my 2 cents.
Speaker 0 00:45:08 I just want to, uh, you broke up a little bit there, but I want to say thank you for bringing up the stolen concept. That's exactly what I was talking about without naming it and, uh, you named it. So that's great. Um, With the, um, With the idea that knowledge is causal perception is, but, and there's a lot of causality involved in thinking, uh, obviously because we're exercising, um, uh, cognitive capacity, which has its neurological basis and, um, is as well as psychological, um, influences pro and con including our knowledge of methods. However, in, in the conceptual realm, In the middle of causal sequences is twice our ability to focus or not to a vein or not. And that's what makes it moral in the way that being your Saturday is not a sign of immorality. Um, So anyway, thanks for that. And, uh, did I see Steven up?
Speaker 9 00:46:23 Yes. I'd like to, uh, jump in a couple of the, I'm curious about your faculty colleagues, whom you mentioned in many cases are hostile to the notion of objectivity. And I wonder if you had some thoughts about what seemed to be the main junctures that take them off in that direction, uh, you know, given that your, your students seemed, you know, unspoiled and they can go through the exercise, but what is the, the great resistance have they just talk themselves out of any sort of understanding of objectivity or are there other forces at work?
Speaker 0 00:46:59 Um, well, I think you had both, both things are at work here. I mean, as you know, Steven on better than I do from your study of postmodernism, that there are, uh, uh, just a raft of philosophical, um, objections to the idea of object can be going back to the Greeks, um, that it's selective, that it's, um, it, it depends on, on our particular kind of sensory organs and conceptual apparatus that it's fallible. We can't be sure how, how do you know you're not wrong? Um, the evil demon, um, example from Descartes and it's modern variant of rain in the VAT example. And so there are a lot of those things that anyone in philosophy, anyone who's teaching philosophy has been steeped in. Um, and not many of them know, uh, that we've got the answers to those things they haven't read or unread. I haven't read my evidence of the census, but there's also, you know, the, on the, the choice side.
Speaker 0 00:48:22 Um, but I'm calling the choice of the commitment side. There are people that really, and this includes intellectuals who really don't want to be bound by reality. And, um, I mean, I think particularly in, in, uh, I mean, for example, Stephen, one of the points you make in your book explaining postmodernism and in various lectures you've given is that the attack on objectivity serves the purpose of being able to evade everything that's wrong with socialism. So they, you know, it's inheritance would still be socialists, right. And that's a motive it's not, uh, so that's a short answer, but, um,
Speaker 2 00:49:15 Stephen, did you have, do you, you might have an answer to your own question in, in your, um, decades of teaching. Uh,
Speaker 9 00:49:25 Yeah, I guess I do, but, um, while David is the main man on stage of just wondering if in the whole raft of, uh, reasons setting aside the bad motives, if, uh, in David's experience, he could identify maybe one or two that seem to be most persuasive on intelligent philosophy students that lead them down that path, the ones that we then should strategically focus on.
Speaker 0 00:49:57 Well, that's a great question, Stephen and I have to think more. Do you have a good answer to it? Uh, just for now, what I would say is that, um, one of the more innocent motives is an innocent, um, objections to object is the idea that, um, we could be wrong. And sometimes historically we have found out things we believe were wrong. And so the issue of certainty and, and, um, it's, it's not a, it's not a hard or necessarily irrational jump, um, from we're prone to error to, can we be certain of anything? And, you know, I, there's some real, real small epistemological challenges I think in answering that question fully. Um, so that's, that's my take, uh, not my head about the kind of the Mo the more innocent, um, but I think pretty common. Um, objection.
Speaker 2 00:51:19 Yeah. Thank you. Uh, Roger, you've been here. Um, I'd love to know if you had a take on this or any applications to, to what we're experiencing now with all of the, uh, you know, sharp divisions.
Speaker 10 00:51:36 Yeah. My, my question for David is in regards to freewill, uh, and how it applies to objectivity. Um, obviously we can, we can observe, uh, that, uh, that we have the ability to think, and if we can think then we are choosing, uh, to think, and, uh, and we know this there's evidence of that, right? If somebody says something that we disagree with, we can then think about it. And, uh, and there's, uh, if somebody persuades us with an argument, our minds can be changed. And so that ability to think, I think proves out free will. But my question for you would be, are you open to the idea that, uh, compatibilism, which would, uh, suggest that some things are predetermined, um, but, but that you do have this limited, uh, range of choices could compatible ism be compatible, uh, with, uh, with objectivity.
Speaker 0 00:52:40 Okay, boy, that's a big one. Um, thanks, Roger. The, uh, let's clarify, first of all, the term compatible realism in, in, um, in philosophy that term is normally used to mean a form of determinism. That is every thought choice, and action is causally necessitated by prior states of the person and the environment, but within those, among those thoughts, choices, and actions, some are, uh, reflections of inner motives as opposed to, uh, uh, cognitive and emotional factors that are inside the person and are, um, uh, mental rather than say a reflex. The doctor is your knee. And if your reflexes are working, you don't have any choice about your reaction, or if, uh, um, you know, I hate to use the example, but if a car hits you either, there's no choice if you don't go down. Um, but I think your sense of compatibles in here is that there's a large degree to which our thoughts what's going on in our psychology, uh, interactions is subject to causal factors.
Speaker 0 00:54:12 Um, but with some room for free choice, and that is exactly what I've considered the free choice position, because obviously, you know, uh, there's a lot of causality going on. Uh, I, lots of examples, but, um, if you see something that is scary, you're going to feel fear. You don't choose to feel fear. It just happens. That's the way your emotions, or, um, like a cognitive example. Um, there was a famous, famous example. Well, I'll take the example from, uh, Atlas shrugged, uh, at one point, um, Eddie Willers has a meeting in Hank birdies, a hotel room about a business transaction, and Hank is just, it's just gotten up, he's wearing his robe with his initials, HR on it. Okay. No big deal then much later, uh, Eddie is, uh, in Dagny his department helping her pack. Uh, she's got to leave in a hurry and he notices in your closet, this blue robe that has HR on it.
Speaker 0 00:55:32 And suddenly he can't help drawing the conclusion, oh my God, they're lovers. Um, so there are lots of things like that, but we, um, we have, uh, you know, w there is a domain in which we have to exercise thinking. And even in my example of any sort of, you could have blanked it out, put up while the characters were doing that, and he's a good guy, so he didn't, but, um, uh, but the search, you know, trying to solve a problem, bending a motor, um, running a railroad, all of these things take a lot of thought that you can, um, you know, choose to exercise on higher or lower re uh, focus on or choose not even to take the account evade backs. So does that clarify at all? Roger?
Speaker 10 00:56:34 Yeah, I guess what I'm hearing is that, uh, it may just be a definition problem. Um, and I'm probably not the best person to make this argument. Um, I was just kind of curious, uh, you know, like if I were to say, uh, that I believed in compatibilism, I guess the, the, the yes-no question would be, uh, is compatible ism, um, uh, consistent with, uh, objectivity,
Speaker 0 00:57:02 I would say no, because I don't think there can be objectivity unless you are in control of your mind in the sense, and would including a volitional control, because on the strictly determined, a fully determined is basis, even a compatible one, um, you can't step back your conclusions, your thoughts are going to be governed by antecedent factors, not you, you can raise questions about them introspectively, but those are also governed. And this is called the contradiction of determinism that, um, you can't fully justify even the determined as position, because if you're determined as you hold that, um, you're very acceptance of determinism was constantly necessitated, not by the facts, but by causal factors, not by your grasp of reality, but by forces acting on you inside or outside.
Speaker 2 00:58:03 All right. Well, that takes us right up to the top of the hour. I wanna thank, uh, our founder, David Kelly for this illuminating discussion, also extremely grateful, uh, to the rest of our faculty, Jason, Steven, Richard, um, Rob, uh, and, uh, I've added in here, the link to our upcoming events. Um, today we have our morals and markets seminar. This is a program for students and recent graduates. So if you're under 30, um, please join us with your camera on. If you'd like to audit, you can do so, but please just give the, the floor and, uh, to the students and recent graduates and keep your camera off. Um, and then we have, uh, our book club is coming up on Monday. Um, professor Jason Hill is going to be sharing some of his insights on, of course Iran's classic novella Anthem. And, uh, next week we have, um, some really great clubhouses with Rob Sinskey on Iran's case for a secular morality. I'm doing a live interview with Isaac Morehouse on Wednesday and the much awaited second part of Jason Hills two-part series, iron Rand, and sex is coming up next week. You will not want to, uh, to miss that. So, um, thanks everyone. And look forward to seeing you, if not tonight, then next week,
