Just out, Thomas Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Perihermenias (also known as De Intepretatione). the commentary was probably written between 1269 and 1271, following his other 'Aristotelian' commentaries such as on the Posterior Analytics and on the Metaphysics. There are some notes on the Perihermenias, together with links to other commentaries (including this one) here.
I see Charles Freeman has just commented on an earlier post - welcome Charles. There were dozens, if not hundreds of medieval commentaries on this logical work by Aristotle. Many of them were written before the thirteenth century - Abelard's being the most notable of those.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The problem of Aristotle
I have just noticed The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman. The thesis is that after Constantine declared Christianity the state religion in 312, the church successfully quashed any challenges to its religious and political authority, in particular any challenges arising from the tradition of Greek rationalism and (in effect) held up human development for a thousand years until the Renaissance.
The difficulty with any such view is that it must face up to the 'problem of Aristotle'. If there really was a 'spirit of Greek rationalism', why did Greek science and philosophy apparently not advance much beyond Aristotle, writing in the fourth century BC, and Constantine in 312 (that's about 700 years)? And if Christian dogma was really that stifling, how was it that Western science developed from the rediscovery of Aristotle's work at the end of the 12th century to the scientific revolution in the 17th century (that's about 500 years)?
It is particularly difficult to explain given that (as I noted here, and as everyone knows) Aristotelian science is so spectularly wrong. Nearly all his scientific views are false, indeed spectacularly and obviously false, and in a way that the simplest experiment would confirm. How did the Greeks did not notice this? As Hannam notes (God's Philosophers chapter 11), simple observation of the trajectory of an arrow or of a ball thrown through the air, noted by Albert of Saxony as early as the 14th century, would have refuted a considerable part of Aristotle's physics.
Why and how was it that the medieval West eventually progressed well beyond Aristotle's science, when Greek culture did not? Constantine's state religion seems completely irrelevant.
The difficulty with any such view is that it must face up to the 'problem of Aristotle'. If there really was a 'spirit of Greek rationalism', why did Greek science and philosophy apparently not advance much beyond Aristotle, writing in the fourth century BC, and Constantine in 312 (that's about 700 years)? And if Christian dogma was really that stifling, how was it that Western science developed from the rediscovery of Aristotle's work at the end of the 12th century to the scientific revolution in the 17th century (that's about 500 years)?
It is particularly difficult to explain given that (as I noted here, and as everyone knows) Aristotelian science is so spectularly wrong. Nearly all his scientific views are false, indeed spectacularly and obviously false, and in a way that the simplest experiment would confirm. How did the Greeks did not notice this? As Hannam notes (God's Philosophers chapter 11), simple observation of the trajectory of an arrow or of a ball thrown through the air, noted by Albert of Saxony as early as the 14th century, would have refuted a considerable part of Aristotle's physics.
Why and how was it that the medieval West eventually progressed well beyond Aristotle's science, when Greek culture did not? Constantine's state religion seems completely irrelevant.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Hasty generalisation?
After a demanding and sometimes painful week with Longeway I am taking it relatively easy with James Hannam's Gods of the Philosophers. "With an engaging fervour, James Hannam has set about rescuing the reputation of a bunch of half-forgotten thinkers, and he shows how they paved the way for modern science" says Boris Johnson, no less.
It is an engaging and entertainingly written book, whose purpose is to show the extent of scientific progress in the Middle Ages, and to dispel some prevalent and persistent myths about the period. I can't find serious fault so far (I have reached the 'condemnations' of 1277). While it has no news for students of the period, being mostly taken from (generally reliable and authoritative) secondary sources, the subject desperately needs a popular audience, and Hannam has succeeded brilliantly
Yet it has attracted fierce criticism. Charles Freeman, author of The Closing of the Western Mind, attacked the book in an essay in New Humanist, arguing that it presents a distorted view of the medieval period.
I won't attempt any serious analysis of these, except to note Freeman's frequent accusation of Hannam's 'sweeping assertions'. Generalisation is difficult to avoid when you are attempting to cover nearly a thousand years of intellectual history in 300 pages. So far, Hannam has avoided it very well. His main arguments is are from example. He gives many stories and accounts, all sourced, showing the extent of medieval innovation. Many of them are simply intended to debunk myth and prejudice (I was particularly struck by the revelation that the synthesis of hydrochloric, sulphuric and nitric acid first occurred in the West in the thirteenth century, and not earlier in the Middle East). The only hint of generalisation I have found so far is on page 105. Hannam writes:
It is an engaging and entertainingly written book, whose purpose is to show the extent of scientific progress in the Middle Ages, and to dispel some prevalent and persistent myths about the period. I can't find serious fault so far (I have reached the 'condemnations' of 1277). While it has no news for students of the period, being mostly taken from (generally reliable and authoritative) secondary sources, the subject desperately needs a popular audience, and Hannam has succeeded brilliantly
Yet it has attracted fierce criticism. Charles Freeman, author of The Closing of the Western Mind, attacked the book in an essay in New Humanist, arguing that it presents a distorted view of the medieval period.
God’s Philosophers is ... poorly structured, without aHannam replied, and Freeman followed with a further critique.
coherent argument and often misleading, either through making assertions for
which there is no, or contrary, evidence or by omitting evidence that would
weaken its case. The review that called it “a spirited jaunt” was spot on. It
catches the mood of serendipitous ramblings, anecdotes and asides that make it
an easy read but hardly a serious contribution to our understanding of medieval
and sixteenth century science. Its success is mystifying.
I won't attempt any serious analysis of these, except to note Freeman's frequent accusation of Hannam's 'sweeping assertions'. Generalisation is difficult to avoid when you are attempting to cover nearly a thousand years of intellectual history in 300 pages. So far, Hannam has avoided it very well. His main arguments is are from example. He gives many stories and accounts, all sourced, showing the extent of medieval innovation. Many of them are simply intended to debunk myth and prejudice (I was particularly struck by the revelation that the synthesis of hydrochloric, sulphuric and nitric acid first occurred in the West in the thirteenth century, and not earlier in the Middle East). The only hint of generalisation I have found so far is on page 105. Hannam writes:
The condemnations [of 1277 when 219 propositions were banned in Paris] andThe passage is not sourced, and Hannam does not explain clearly the logic for his assertion. It is one of at least three views which Hyman and Walsh summarise it as follows.
Thomas's Summa Theologiae had created a framework within which natural
philosophers could safely pursue their studies. The framework first defined
clear boundaries between natural philosophy and theology. This allowed the
philosophers to get on with the study of nature without being tempted to indulge
in illicit metaphysical speculation. Then the framework laid down the principle
that God had decreed the laws of nature but was not bound by them. Finally, it
stated that Aristotle was sometimes wrong [...] and if Aristotle could be wrong
about something that he regarded as completely certain, that threw his whole
philosophy into question. The way was clear for the natural philosophers of the
Middle Ages to move decisively beyond the achievements of the Greeks (God's
Philosophers p. 105).
Most scholars agree that these condemnations had a profound effect on theBut it is a recognised view for all that. So far there is very little of distortion or falsification. I recommend the book.
history of medieval thought, but they disagree as to the nature and significance
of that effect. The condemnations have been called [1] a brutal victory
Augustinianism over Aristotelianism, but Aristotle flourished in the schools
after as well as before. It has been said [2] that by freeing the later Middle Ages
from the domination of a rigid Averroistic Aristotelianism, the way was opened
for the development of natural science as the inquiry into nature rather than
the dogmatic reiteration of the Aristotelian corpus. But surely this exaggerates
the monolithic character of the acceptance of Aristotle even by masters such as
Siger of Brabant, and underestimates the continued influence of Aristotle and
Averroes on the development of natural science. A more general and widely
accepted view [3] is that with the Condemnation of 1277, the scholastic effeort to
inforporate and renovate philosophy came to an end. But this surely
underestimates the philosophical advances, especially the methodological ones,
of the later period.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Ockham: the founder of European empiricism
I am finally getting to the meaty parts of Longeway's book*. He says at the beginning (p.2), and in the 'Ockham and his [medieval] predecessors approached some of the most fundamental problems of a scientific empiricism, both ancient and modern'and that 'Ockham may reasonably be regarded as the founder of empiricism in the European tradition'. This is strong and heady stuff and was a clinching reason for buying the book. After 100 pages, we are getting towards some of the reasons.
I understand Longeway's argument as follows. According to Ockham (Summa I.26), there are three kinds of definition. (1) A nominal definition is a way of setting the meaning of the defined term, and so a is true in virtue of the meaning of the term. E.g. 'a bachelor is an unmarried man. (2) Two kinds of real definition. A metaphysical definition indicates genus and difference, for example 'a man is a rational [differentia] animal [genus]'. (3) A natural definition (Spade translates this as physical definition) is one which signifies obliquely essential parts of the thing defined. For example, 'a triangle is a figure contained by three straight lines'.
Ockham argues (Summa II.ii.35, cited in Longeway p. 112) says that any attempted demonstration will depend upon either the nominal definition of the attribute, and so beg the question, or a metaphysical definition, which is essentially inexplicable and provides no scientific assistance, or a natural definition. Only demonstration using natural definition is truly scientific.
Let's flesh this out. The Aristotelian model for scientific demonstration is as follows.
A B is a C
An A is a B
Therefore, an A is a C
To explain why A is C, Aristotle says we must find a 'middle term' B which is common to A and C. But it is clearly not enough for B simply to be synonymous with C, otherwise the syllogism would beg the question. For example
An unmarried man is a bachelor
John is an unmarried man
Therefore, John is a bachelor.
To understand the term 'batchelor' you have to understand that it means 'unmarried man'. Thus the conclusion moves us no further than the minor premiss 'John is an unmarried man' It expresses the same thing in different terms, having the same meaning, and the 'reasoning' is trivial. Nor is a 'metaphysical definition' of any assistance. We can have a direct intellectual grasp of a thing, but only of its genus, as a whole, 'without any insight into its metaphysical structure' (p.114). 'A demonstration rooted in a grasp of metaphysical definition of the primary subject of an attribute can only occur after this life'.
The only case where true demonstration is possible is in the case where the middle term involves a natural definition. And this can only happen where the subject is something composite. Longeway cites (p. 113) the example of a triangle, with spatial parts arranged in such a way that an analysis of its structure will tell us that it has the attribute in question. This is what happens in geometry and mathematics.
This means that there can be no true scientific explanation of things which are essentially simple. Ockham thinks we cannot explain heat, for example, because we cannot explain it in terms of of composition and mathematics. As Longeway explains it "The natural definition of an attribute is of no assistance here for the straightforward reason that a simple quality such as heat has no variety or structure of essential parts, but is rather uniformly alike in every one of its parts. No mechanism by which heat heats is there to uncover. It just heats. And this can only be known from experience" (p. 113)
We can only apply mathematical techniques to things in nature which they are composite, and which can be defined in terms of their material parts. Thus (for Ockham) we cannot have a scientific explanation of substance. Ockham still holds to the Aristotelian view that the causal properties of a substance cannot be explained in terms of the substance's parts. According to Aristotle, substances are essentially simple. Their properties follow from their substantial form (the essence of a substance, corresponding to a species). A substantial form is what is signified by the definiens of a definition. A substantial form is a universal (since only universals are definable - see Metaphysics Z8 1034a6-8). A substantial form is immaterial (because a substance is a combination of material and form). A substantial form is simple (Metaphysics Z12). If the properties of a species could be explained by composition, a substance would not be an essential unity, and so would not be a substance, but a collection of substances.
This is interesting, but doesn't really explain why we should regard Ockham as the founder of European empiricism. As Longeway points out, real progress only began when Descartes and Boyle "insisted on mathematical-mechanical modes of explanation connecting one accident of material substance to another, rather than explanations of the first attributes of material substance". (p.115) One of the essential ingredients of modern science is the rejection of the Aristotelian doctrine of substantial forms. (See Locke about this here, especially section 10). Since Ockham did not reject substantial forms, why should we regard him as the founder of modern science?
Longeway gives no convincing reply to this line of reasoning, except for suggesting that once Ockham has shown the impossibility of scientific explanation using metaphysical definition, it is tempting to look for explanations in terms of natural definition.
* Demonstration and Scientific Knowledge in William of Ockham: A Translation of Summa Logicae III-II: De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio.
I understand Longeway's argument as follows. According to Ockham (Summa I.26), there are three kinds of definition. (1) A nominal definition is a way of setting the meaning of the defined term, and so a is true in virtue of the meaning of the term. E.g. 'a bachelor is an unmarried man. (2) Two kinds of real definition. A metaphysical definition indicates genus and difference, for example 'a man is a rational [differentia] animal [genus]'. (3) A natural definition (Spade translates this as physical definition) is one which signifies obliquely essential parts of the thing defined. For example, 'a triangle is a figure contained by three straight lines'.
Ockham argues (Summa II.ii.35, cited in Longeway p. 112) says that any attempted demonstration will depend upon either the nominal definition of the attribute, and so beg the question, or a metaphysical definition, which is essentially inexplicable and provides no scientific assistance, or a natural definition. Only demonstration using natural definition is truly scientific.
Let's flesh this out. The Aristotelian model for scientific demonstration is as follows.
A B is a C
An A is a B
Therefore, an A is a C
To explain why A is C, Aristotle says we must find a 'middle term' B which is common to A and C. But it is clearly not enough for B simply to be synonymous with C, otherwise the syllogism would beg the question. For example
An unmarried man is a bachelor
John is an unmarried man
Therefore, John is a bachelor.
To understand the term 'batchelor' you have to understand that it means 'unmarried man'. Thus the conclusion moves us no further than the minor premiss 'John is an unmarried man' It expresses the same thing in different terms, having the same meaning, and the 'reasoning' is trivial. Nor is a 'metaphysical definition' of any assistance. We can have a direct intellectual grasp of a thing, but only of its genus, as a whole, 'without any insight into its metaphysical structure' (p.114). 'A demonstration rooted in a grasp of metaphysical definition of the primary subject of an attribute can only occur after this life'.
The only case where true demonstration is possible is in the case where the middle term involves a natural definition. And this can only happen where the subject is something composite. Longeway cites (p. 113) the example of a triangle, with spatial parts arranged in such a way that an analysis of its structure will tell us that it has the attribute in question. This is what happens in geometry and mathematics.
This means that there can be no true scientific explanation of things which are essentially simple. Ockham thinks we cannot explain heat, for example, because we cannot explain it in terms of of composition and mathematics. As Longeway explains it "The natural definition of an attribute is of no assistance here for the straightforward reason that a simple quality such as heat has no variety or structure of essential parts, but is rather uniformly alike in every one of its parts. No mechanism by which heat heats is there to uncover. It just heats. And this can only be known from experience" (p. 113)
We can only apply mathematical techniques to things in nature which they are composite, and which can be defined in terms of their material parts. Thus (for Ockham) we cannot have a scientific explanation of substance. Ockham still holds to the Aristotelian view that the causal properties of a substance cannot be explained in terms of the substance's parts. According to Aristotle, substances are essentially simple. Their properties follow from their substantial form (the essence of a substance, corresponding to a species). A substantial form is what is signified by the definiens of a definition. A substantial form is a universal (since only universals are definable - see Metaphysics Z8 1034a6-8). A substantial form is immaterial (because a substance is a combination of material and form). A substantial form is simple (Metaphysics Z12). If the properties of a species could be explained by composition, a substance would not be an essential unity, and so would not be a substance, but a collection of substances.
This is interesting, but doesn't really explain why we should regard Ockham as the founder of European empiricism. As Longeway points out, real progress only began when Descartes and Boyle "insisted on mathematical-mechanical modes of explanation connecting one accident of material substance to another, rather than explanations of the first attributes of material substance". (p.115) One of the essential ingredients of modern science is the rejection of the Aristotelian doctrine of substantial forms. (See Locke about this here, especially section 10). Since Ockham did not reject substantial forms, why should we regard him as the founder of modern science?
Longeway gives no convincing reply to this line of reasoning, except for suggesting that once Ockham has shown the impossibility of scientific explanation using metaphysical definition, it is tempting to look for explanations in terms of natural definition.
we know that early modern scientists were so tempted, and Descartes and othersSince our only tool for understanding why is analysis in terms of material parts and the application of mathematics, it would be natural to be tempted by materialist reductionism in biology.
rejected the assujmption immaterial substantial forms underlying biological
properties precisely because such an assumption did nothing to provide an
understanding why animals and plants have the properties in question. (p 115)
* Demonstration and Scientific Knowledge in William of Ockham: A Translation of Summa Logicae III-II: De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
The end of the first of the second
The last questions of Prima Secundae, the first part of the second book of Summa Theologiae. Questions 106-108 and Questions 109-114 now available.
Is it cruel to believe in Hell?
Is the belief cruel? You might say that God is cruel. But is the person who believes this of God also cruel? Why? If God does not exist, no one has or will be punished, and so no one is hurt. If God exists, but does not intend to punish souls in this way, the same applies. Cruelty can only exist when there is an object of cruelty.
But if God exists and does intend punish souls in this way, then that is the fact of the matter. There is nothing that the believer can do to prevent the suffering.
David Hume had the interesting theory that all professed believers are really atheists. He says that all Catholics condemn the St Bartholomew's massacre as cruel and inhumane. Yet these are the same people, he says, who condemn non-Catholics to eternal torment 'without scruple'.
Currently being discussed at the Quodlibet forum.
But if God exists and does intend punish souls in this way, then that is the fact of the matter. There is nothing that the believer can do to prevent the suffering.
David Hume had the interesting theory that all professed believers are really atheists. He says that all Catholics condemn the St Bartholomew's massacre as cruel and inhumane. Yet these are the same people, he says, who condemn non-Catholics to eternal torment 'without scruple'.
Currently being discussed at the Quodlibet forum.
Wikipedia admits plagiarism
Yesterday's post saw a burst of traffic from Wikipedia, of all places. The fuss over this particular incident will down, but there are two important principles to be gathered from this.
The first is that most of the people now on the project do not possess the skills to develop an accurate and comprehensive reference work. As we just saw, a senior person on the project has defended his outright plagiarism by admitting he cannot write. Another of his colleague agrees, making the extraordinary statement that "plagiarism … is not only rampant, it is a standard editorial practice throughout the project". Crowdsourcing doesn't work.
The second is the lengths the adminstration will go to stifle any legimitimate criticism of the project. An editor (not me) who raised an earlier alarm about plagiarism was promptly blocked by the same person who said that plagiarism is now standard practice. The edit history of the plagiarist has been erased - if you click on the links in my previous post you will see they no longer work. Any discussion of the incident has been stifled. A long-term content contributor complained about this and was promptly blocked as well . More details here.
Of course, all organisations have the tendency to stifle debate and legitimate criticism. But Wikipedia takes this to extremes, which is especially ironic given its commitment to 'free culture' and 'open source'. Or is it? When being free and open really means stealing, it's difficult to be free and open, isn't it?
The first is that most of the people now on the project do not possess the skills to develop an accurate and comprehensive reference work. As we just saw, a senior person on the project has defended his outright plagiarism by admitting he cannot write. Another of his colleague agrees, making the extraordinary statement that "plagiarism … is not only rampant, it is a standard editorial practice throughout the project". Crowdsourcing doesn't work.
The second is the lengths the adminstration will go to stifle any legimitimate criticism of the project. An editor (not me) who raised an earlier alarm about plagiarism was promptly blocked by the same person who said that plagiarism is now standard practice. The edit history of the plagiarist has been erased - if you click on the links in my previous post you will see they no longer work. Any discussion of the incident has been stifled. A long-term content contributor complained about this and was promptly blocked as well . More details here.
Of course, all organisations have the tendency to stifle debate and legitimate criticism. But Wikipedia takes this to extremes, which is especially ironic given its commitment to 'free culture' and 'open source'. Or is it? When being free and open really means stealing, it's difficult to be free and open, isn't it?
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Plagiarism now and then
I've commented before that many of Wikipedia's articles are plagiarised from out of date sourceslike the Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. Actually a lot of them are plagiarised from more current sources. The table below compares the article on an American Buddhist temple written by a member of the prestigious Arbitration committee with the source where he apparently obtained it from. He has since left ‘the project’ after similar concerns raised by other users, and left this touching message on his talk page. This includes the bizarre statement “I asked many people for help because I know I’m not good at writing”.
| Wikipedia | HISTORY OF WAT PASANTIDHAMMA |
|---|---|
| The first formal meeting was held on August 25, 1996 in York County, Virginia and was attended by many local Thais, Laotians, and Cambodians. | The first formal meeting was held on August 25, 1996at the Thai Erawan Restaurant in York County, Virginia. The meeting was very successful with many local Thais, Laotians, Cambodians attended. |
| After the meeting, the first newsletter was published and distributed. | After the meeting, the first newsletter was published and distributed. |
| PhraMaha Surasak Jivanando, the Abbot of Wat Thai Washington, D.C., provided advice to the group throughout the process to get the new temple functioning. | PhraMaha Surasak Jivanando, the Abbot of Wat Thai Washington, D.C., who is widely known for his wisdom, kindness, and well respected, provides unending support and advice to the group. |
| On September 8, 1996, members of the Thai Buddhist community went to Wat Thai and had the first formal meeting with PhraMaha Surasak. | Seeking his advice, on September81996, members of the Samukee Group went to Wat Thai Washington, D.C. and had the first formal meeting with PhraMaha Surasak again on November 19, 1996. |
| The association's first formal president, Dr. Tawatchai Onsanit, guided the organization through the first two years. | The association first formal president, Dr. Tawatchai Onsanit, guided the organization through trouble water during the first two years. |
| Rental properties for religious functions were scarce and thus the association looked for a property to buy. | It was also obvious that the rental property for religious functions were scarce. Consequently, probability of succeeding with purchase option was far greater. |
| The first priority was to have a place where one or two monks could reside in the Tidewater area and provide continuous spiritual leadership. The search committee finally found an affordable place in Carrolton, Isle of Wight County, Virginia.[1] | … the first priority was to have a monks' residence such that one or two monks could reside in the Tide Water area and could provide continuous spiritual leadership. The search committee finally found an affordable place at 14289 Chapman's Lane in Carrolton, Isle of Wight County, Virginia. |
| On September 28, 1997, PhraMaha Taweepong Tawiwongso, PhraMaha Putthachak Buddhisaro, and PhraMaha Saman Methawee were invited to a local celebration of the "Sarth Thai" Day and to visit the place of interest. All monks agreed that was a perfect place for a monks' residence and a meditation center as it was rural and located in a wooded setting. | On September 28, 1997, PhraMaha Taweepong Tawiwongso, PhraMahaPutthachak Buddhisaro, and PhraMahaSaman Methawee were invited to a local celebration of the "Sarth Thai"Day and to visit the place of interest. All of the monks agreed that was a perfect place for a monks' residence and a meditation center. |
| Upon consensus among its members, the Association presented to PhraMaha Surasak Jivanando a proposal to formally establish a monks' residence and requested that two monks reside at the place and act as local religious leaders. | Upon consensus of the its members, the Association presented to PhraMaha Surasak Jivanando a proposal to formally establishing a monks' residence and requested that two monks are to reside at the place and to be local religious leaders. |
| On December 31, 1997, The Buddha Samukee Association bought the said parcel on Chapman's Lane for the sum of 50,000 dollars with the owner agreeing to hold a $40,000 mortgage note. The parcel consists of 6.35 acres of wooded land and a house. | On December 31, 1997, The Buddha Samukee Associationbought the said parcel on Chapman's Lane for the sum of 50,000 dollars with the owner agreed to hold a $40,000 mortgage note. The parcel consists of 6.35 acres of wooded land and a house. |
| In January 1998, Phra Maha Surasak and other monks from Wat Thai Washington D.C. graciously accepted the invitation to visit the place and to give a blessing and a name of 'Wat Pa Santidhamma'.[1] | On January 1998, Phra Maha Surasak and other monks from Wat Thai Washington D.C. were graciously accepted the invitation to visit the place and to give a blessing and a name of 'Wat Pa Santidhamma' |
Thursday, November 04, 2010
The best way for a pressure group to spend its time
"The more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that this [Wikipedia] is the best way for a pressure group to spend its time" Daniel Hannan. I pointed out as much here.
Indifference to science
A few things have reminded me of philosophers' indifference to actual science. The first was my own fault. I linked to this explanation of why glass is transparent, but after second thoughts and a bit longer on Google, the explanation seems completely wrong. I suspect the explanation (if you can follow it) in Wikipedia is the correct one, although (as I constantly remind my readers) you should beware of anything you read in Wikipedia. The second reminder is the supply of amusing and interesting scientific explanations by medieval authors quoted in Longeway's book. All of them are wrong. Grosseteste gives an explanation of thunder that involves hot and cold air mixing, expanding and producing flame, then quenching the flame with an audible explosion (the thunder). Any explanation of thunder that does not involve electricity (and the associated concepts of charge) is clearly wrong. And how about this wonderfully dodgy piece of neuroscience (from Albertus Magnus, quoted in Longeway p.56).
(1) In everyone in which there is an appetite for pain in what opposes him, there is an accession of blood to the heart from the evaporation of gall;
(2) in someone who is angry there is an appetite for pain in what is opposed to him;
(3) therefore, in one who is angry there is an accession of blood to the heart from the evaporation of gall.
The science mentioned by philosophers is often very bad. That in itself does not mean they are indifferent to science, but I believe they are indifferent as well. They are philosophers, and the actual science does not affect any philosophical point being made. I can easily change the example given in my earlier post as follows
Propter quid
Light passes through any substance which neither reflects it nor absorbs it
Glass neither reflects nor absorbs light
Therefore light passes through glass.
I will leave the construction of the corresponding quia form as an exercise. Note also that you would need to combine this with further syllogism involving an account of why glass neither reflects nor absorbs light (a substance absorbs light when its electron orbitals are spaced such that they can absorb a quantum of light (or photon) of a specific frequency, and does not violate selection rules). But none of that matters. The philosophical point is the same. Similarly, we could alter Albert's example to use a favourite example (probably equally dodgy) of modern philosophers of science as follows.
In everyone in which there is an appetite for pain in what opposes him, there is an appropriate stimulation of c-fibers in the hypothalmus
in someone who is angry there is an appetite for pain in what is opposed to him;
therefore, in one who is angry there is an appropriate stimulation of c-fibers in the hypothalmus
Aristotle's point is that every scientific explanation involves interposing a 'middle' B between some empirical truth of the form 'A is C', so we get a demonstration of the form
All B is C
This A is B
Therefore this A is C
which is meant to explain why the empirical truth is really true. All scientific demonstration involves 'finding a middle', and this point can be illustrated whether or not the scientific truth 'All B is C' is bad science or not. This is all about the philosophy of science, not science itself.
Which raises a further interesting point. Given that these medieval philosophers (Grosseteste, Albert, Aquinas, Ockham) were doing philosophy of science, not science itself, does that mean that all the medieval writing about 'science' was really philosophy of science? Which raises the difficult question of whether there really was a scientific revolution in the thirteenth century. And raises yet another question: do we need the philosophy of science, or an approach resembling the one adopted by the Aristotelian philosophers, in order to explain the most fundamental and difficult problems of science? Recall the Aristotelian definition of science: knowledge arrived at by demonstration. What kind of demonstration explains the phenomenon of anger? How do we explain anger in terms of the mechanical stimulation of 'c-fibres'? What kind of stimulation would explain anger at further bouts of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve? Is philosophical indifference to science, merely indifference to science of a certain kind? But enough for now.
(1) In everyone in which there is an appetite for pain in what opposes him, there is an accession of blood to the heart from the evaporation of gall;
(2) in someone who is angry there is an appetite for pain in what is opposed to him;
(3) therefore, in one who is angry there is an accession of blood to the heart from the evaporation of gall.
The science mentioned by philosophers is often very bad. That in itself does not mean they are indifferent to science, but I believe they are indifferent as well. They are philosophers, and the actual science does not affect any philosophical point being made. I can easily change the example given in my earlier post as follows
Propter quid
Light passes through any substance which neither reflects it nor absorbs it
Glass neither reflects nor absorbs light
Therefore light passes through glass.
I will leave the construction of the corresponding quia form as an exercise. Note also that you would need to combine this with further syllogism involving an account of why glass neither reflects nor absorbs light (a substance absorbs light when its electron orbitals are spaced such that they can absorb a quantum of light (or photon) of a specific frequency, and does not violate selection rules). But none of that matters. The philosophical point is the same. Similarly, we could alter Albert's example to use a favourite example (probably equally dodgy) of modern philosophers of science as follows.
In everyone in which there is an appetite for pain in what opposes him, there is an appropriate stimulation of c-fibers in the hypothalmus
in someone who is angry there is an appetite for pain in what is opposed to him;
therefore, in one who is angry there is an appropriate stimulation of c-fibers in the hypothalmus
Aristotle's point is that every scientific explanation involves interposing a 'middle' B between some empirical truth of the form 'A is C', so we get a demonstration of the form
All B is C
This A is B
Therefore this A is C
which is meant to explain why the empirical truth is really true. All scientific demonstration involves 'finding a middle', and this point can be illustrated whether or not the scientific truth 'All B is C' is bad science or not. This is all about the philosophy of science, not science itself.
Which raises a further interesting point. Given that these medieval philosophers (Grosseteste, Albert, Aquinas, Ockham) were doing philosophy of science, not science itself, does that mean that all the medieval writing about 'science' was really philosophy of science? Which raises the difficult question of whether there really was a scientific revolution in the thirteenth century. And raises yet another question: do we need the philosophy of science, or an approach resembling the one adopted by the Aristotelian philosophers, in order to explain the most fundamental and difficult problems of science? Recall the Aristotelian definition of science: knowledge arrived at by demonstration. What kind of demonstration explains the phenomenon of anger? How do we explain anger in terms of the mechanical stimulation of 'c-fibres'? What kind of stimulation would explain anger at further bouts of quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve? Is philosophical indifference to science, merely indifference to science of a certain kind? But enough for now.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Why light passes through glass
The Longeway book arrived very quickly (2 days) and is a credit to Amazon . Compare this with Waterstone's, who had no copy in any of their London shops, and who said that ordering may take weeks or months, or with the university libraries in London (only UCL library had a copy, but this horribly-designed and uncomfortable building is to be visited only as a last resort).
There is much to say about the book. The introduction is long and as interesting as the reviews suggest. One example, illustrating Longeway's attention to detail, is the way he notices the interesting passage by Aristotle at 88a11. This is in some ways more interesting than the later and better known passage about the lunar eclipse beginning at 89b26. In the case of the eclipse it is theoretically possible for us directly to observe to cause of the eclipse (namely, as he says at 90a24, if we were living on the moon). In the case the transparency of glass, by contrast, it is theoretically impossible for us to observe directly the passage of light through the 'pores' in glass. The passage is also interesting for the insight that some ancient Greek scientists thought that the transparency of glass could be explained through some atomic or molecular theory.
On why glass actually is transparent, see this elementary explanation. It is intended for children, although I didn't follow it that well. It says the reason is that the molecules in liquids are disorganised and random, and so light can pass through them. It cannot pass through solids, because the arrangement of molecules is ordered (I didn't follow this reasoning). Light passes through all liquids, glass is a liquid, therefore light can pass through glass (I did follow this, however).
Note we can express the second reasoning in both Aristotelian propter quid and quia forms, as follows.
Propter quid
Light passes through liquids
Glass is a liquid
Therefore, light passes through glass
Quia
Light only passes through liquids
Light passes through glass
Therefore glass is a liquid
My earlier observations apply here as well. Both syllogisms are essentially trivial and hardly count as 'reasoning' at all. The real reasoning involves how we arrive at the (superficially implausible) premiss that glass is a liquid.
There is much to say about the book. The introduction is long and as interesting as the reviews suggest. One example, illustrating Longeway's attention to detail, is the way he notices the interesting passage by Aristotle at 88a11. This is in some ways more interesting than the later and better known passage about the lunar eclipse beginning at 89b26. In the case of the eclipse it is theoretically possible for us directly to observe to cause of the eclipse (namely, as he says at 90a24, if we were living on the moon). In the case the transparency of glass, by contrast, it is theoretically impossible for us to observe directly the passage of light through the 'pores' in glass. The passage is also interesting for the insight that some ancient Greek scientists thought that the transparency of glass could be explained through some atomic or molecular theory.
On why glass actually is transparent, see this elementary explanation. It is intended for children, although I didn't follow it that well. It says the reason is that the molecules in liquids are disorganised and random, and so light can pass through them. It cannot pass through solids, because the arrangement of molecules is ordered (I didn't follow this reasoning). Light passes through all liquids, glass is a liquid, therefore light can pass through glass (I did follow this, however).
Note we can express the second reasoning in both Aristotelian propter quid and quia forms, as follows.
Propter quid
Light passes through liquids
Glass is a liquid
Therefore, light passes through glass
Quia
Light only passes through liquids
Light passes through glass
Therefore glass is a liquid
My earlier observations apply here as well. Both syllogisms are essentially trivial and hardly count as 'reasoning' at all. The real reasoning involves how we arrive at the (superficially implausible) premiss that glass is a liquid.
Outsourcing the truth
The posts here are mostly about philosophy. Sometimes they are about Wikipedia. Sometimes, happily, they are about both. I was amused by Guardianista Seth Finkelstein's comment here.
Such schemes are far from perfect, and can often lead to a sort of freemasonry. Nor do they prevent practitioners of pseudo-scientific nonsense from getting together according to their own internally-recognised standards of expertise and accreditation (I won't mention any of these, in case I am prosecuted for libel). But I can't think of anything better.
Ah, you have put your finger on one of the dirty little secrets of Wikipedia -Quite right. It's the same as the problem of hiring an expert on a subject. How do you know that the person actually is an expert, when you are not an expert? In reality there are all sorts of mechanisms which generally (not always) get round the problem in practical ways. The usual method is to rely on the property that experts are usually good at recognising other experts. Hence professional bodies, accreditation schemes and all that kind of old-fashioned thing. Wikipedia always officially eschewed this, although an unofficial system of a similar kind operated in practice.
it is in fact not possible to do what it claims to do, which is outsource the
problem of Truth. Relying on "reliable sources" ultimately begs the question,
since no simple rule will work for determining what is "reliable". People often
mistake a very superficial and rather US-centric idea of news-not-opinion as all
that's necessary. In reality, the topic is far more complex. It's necessary to
know something about a subject in first place in order to have a sense of what's
reliable (failures in grappling with this quasi-paradox explain much Wikipedia
tail-chasing on specific controversial issues). Anyway, what I can tell you for
The Guardian was all my columns were read in detail by the relevant editor for
factual claims, and I was expected to substantiate any significant statements of
fact which were arguable (this is a matter of judgment, of course).
Controversial claims about living people received special legal scrutiny. The editorial code is online. I can't speak about what the New York
Times does, I've never written anything for them. -- Seth
Finkelstein (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Such schemes are far from perfect, and can often lead to a sort of freemasonry. Nor do they prevent practitioners of pseudo-scientific nonsense from getting together according to their own internally-recognised standards of expertise and accreditation (I won't mention any of these, in case I am prosecuted for libel). But I can't think of anything better.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
A priori and propter quid
In chapter 17 of Book III part 2 of Summa Logicae, Ockham gives a neat explanation of the terms propter quid and quia that shows how they are close, or even equivalent to the terms a priori and a posteriori respectively. I discussed this earlier. The translation is mine. (Sadly, I failed to get John Longeway's translation from our local Waterstone's, or indeed any Waterstones in the country, and had to resort to Amazon).
Separately, I am working on a translation of Buridans Questions on the Posterior Analytics. The translation of 'scire' is tricky, as both Ockham and Buridan use it with 'notare'. Both mean a sort of knowing. As they use it (and define it) 'scire' means a sort of reasoned knowing, the thing you get from understanding a demonstration, or 'syllogism that produces knowing'. Thus scientia, from which we get the English word 'science'. The modern and the medieval Latin meaning are closely connected. Understanding how they are different is a difficult matter that needs teasing out.
Separately, I am working on a translation of Buridans Questions on the Posterior Analytics. The translation of 'scire' is tricky, as both Ockham and Buridan use it with 'notare'. Both mean a sort of knowing. As they use it (and define it) 'scire' means a sort of reasoned knowing, the thing you get from understanding a demonstration, or 'syllogism that produces knowing'. Thus scientia, from which we get the English word 'science'. The modern and the medieval Latin meaning are closely connected. Understanding how they are different is a difficult matter that needs teasing out.
| Latin | English |
|---|---|
| Propter quod oportet scire quod quaedam est demonstratio cuius praemissae sunt simpliciter priores conclusione, et illa vocatur demonstratio a priori sive propter quid. | On account of this we must know [scire] that one sort of demonstration whose premisses are absolutely prior to the conclusion, and this is called demonstration a priori or propter quid. |
| Quaedam est demonstratio cuius praemissae non sunt simpliciter priores conclusione, sunt tamen notiores sic syllogizanti, per quas devenit sic syllogizans in notitiam conclusionis, et talis demonstratio vocatur demonstratio quia sive a posteriori. | Another sort is demonstration whose premisses are not absolutely prior to the conclusion, and which are nevertheless better known to the syllogiser in this way, through which the syllogiser thus arrives at knowledge of the conclusion. And such demonstration is called demonstration quia or a posteriori. |
Monday, November 01, 2010
Logic and scientific reasoning
This is a follow-on from my earlier post about whether Aristotle's account of scientific reasoning truly captures what scientific reasoning is. He describes two forms: propter quid where we reason from cause to effect, and quia, where we reason from effect to cause.
Propter quid
Being an A is the cause of anything being a B
This X is an A
This X is a B
Quia
Being an A is the only cause of anything being a B
This X is a B
This X is an A
Neither of these captures the process of geniune scientific reasoning or discovery. In propter quid, the major premiss cannot be known unless the causal connection 'A causes B' has already been established. Since proof of the causal connection is the end-product of scientific reasoning and methodology, rather than the beginning, Aristotle's syllogism captures nothing useful. The same objection applies to the quia form, with the additional objection that the 'only' qualification cannot be established with any certainty at all. Scientific reasoning involves constructing a model of reality that explains the observed effects. It is difficult to establish that such a model is the only one. Ptolemy's model of the solar system (where the earth is at the centre) explained the observations available to ancient scientists. Copernicus' model (sun at the centre, circular orbits) explains the same observations, but in a different way. Kepler's model (sun at the centre, elliptical orbits) is different again. Further changes and refinements to this model continued into the twentieth century. It is difficult to prove that any model is the only explanation of the observed effects.
And in any case, how could such a simple syllogism as Aristotle's capture the essence of what is essentially a complex reasoning process that could take many forms?
See also Thomas Reid on the utility of logic.
Propter quid
Being an A is the cause of anything being a B
This X is an A
This X is a B
Quia
Being an A is the only cause of anything being a B
This X is a B
This X is an A
Neither of these captures the process of geniune scientific reasoning or discovery. In propter quid, the major premiss cannot be known unless the causal connection 'A causes B' has already been established. Since proof of the causal connection is the end-product of scientific reasoning and methodology, rather than the beginning, Aristotle's syllogism captures nothing useful. The same objection applies to the quia form, with the additional objection that the 'only' qualification cannot be established with any certainty at all. Scientific reasoning involves constructing a model of reality that explains the observed effects. It is difficult to establish that such a model is the only one. Ptolemy's model of the solar system (where the earth is at the centre) explained the observations available to ancient scientists. Copernicus' model (sun at the centre, circular orbits) explains the same observations, but in a different way. Kepler's model (sun at the centre, elliptical orbits) is different again. Further changes and refinements to this model continued into the twentieth century. It is difficult to prove that any model is the only explanation of the observed effects.
And in any case, how could such a simple syllogism as Aristotle's capture the essence of what is essentially a complex reasoning process that could take many forms?
See also Thomas Reid on the utility of logic.
On whether 'induction' is any improvement on Aristotelian 'deduction', more later."The art of syllogism produced numberless disputes, and numberless sects who
fought against each other with much animosity, without gaining or losing ground,
but did nothing considerable for the benefit of human life. The art of
induction, first delineated by Lord Bacon, produced numberless laboratories and
observatories, in which nature has been put to the question by thousands of
experiments, and forced to confess many of her secrets that before were hid from
mortals: and, by these, arts have been improved, and human knowledge wonderfully
increased.
"In reasoning by syllogism from general principles, we descend to
a conclusion virtually contained in them. The process of induction is more
arduous, being an ascent from particular premises to a general conclusion. The
evidence of such general conclusions is probable only, not demonstrative: but
when the induction is sufficiently copious and carried on according to the rules
of art, it forces conviction no less than demonstration itself does."
Sunday, October 31, 2010
World War II according to Wikipedia
An excellent post here about the way that proponderance of amateur military historians who are unable to leave a single fact unturned no matter how insignificant, leading to a nearly complete lack of proportion so that important facts get glossed. Seeing the wood rather than the trees is the essence of a training in the liberal arts.
The Wikipedia parody section is very funny.
The Wikipedia parody section is very funny.
Scientific reasoning
At the end of Posterior Analytics, book I, Aristotle gives some examples of scientific reasoning.
There are some examples of scientific reasoning here. Unfortunately these do not describe how individuals such as Archimedes or Galileo or Newton actually hit upon the ideas that led to their discoveries. In this paper the nineteenth century epidemiologist John Snow argues, using the case of a water pump Broad Street, Soho in 1854, that cholera must be transmitted by drinking water. He reasons that there was no particular outbreak or increase of cholera except among the people who were in the habit of drinking the water from the pump. Nearly all the deaths were within a close distance of the pump. People who lived close to the pump but did not use it (such as the employees of a local brewery who only drank ale). But the paper is a reasoning process intended to convince others - it does not necessarily represent the thought process that Snow went through in arriving at his discovery. There is an important distinction between proving something to yourself, and proving it to others.
Is there any common thought process that underlies scientific reasoning and scientific discovery?
Quick wit is a faculty of hitting upon the middle term instantaneously. It wouldThe syllogism that Aristotle gives right at the end is demonstration propter quid, reasoning from cause to effect.
be exemplified by a man who saw that the moon has her bright side always turned
towards the sun, and quickly grasped the cause of this, namely that she borrows
her light from him; or observed somebody in conversation with a man of wealth
and divined that he was borrowing money, or that the friendship of these people
sprang from a common enmity. In all these instances he has seen the major and
minor terms and then grasped the causes, the middle terms. Let A represent
‘bright side turned sunward’, B ‘lighted from the sun’, C the moon. Then B,
‘lighted from the sun’ is predicable of C, the moon, and A, ‘having her bright
side towards the source of her light’, is predicable of B. So A is predicable of
C through B. (Posterior Analytics I.34 89b 10)
The moon is lit by the sunBut the reasoning process he describes is demonstration 'quia', reasoning from effect to cause. The man sees that the the moon has her bright side always turned towards the sun, and reasons from this effect to the cause of it, namely sunlight.
Things lit by the sun have their bright side turned towards the sun
The moon has her bright side turned towards the sun
The moon has her bright side turned towards the sunAre either of these illustrative of scientific reasoning itself? Surely not. Whoever has grasped the truth of the minor premiss or 'middle' has already grasped why the effect follows from the cause. The 'reasoning' described by Aristotle does not describe the thought-process that solves the scientific puzzle. What is the thought process that leads to the discovery of the middle? Aristotle merely says it is 'quick wit'.
Things that have their bright side turned towards the sun are lit by the sun
The moon is lit by the sun
There are some examples of scientific reasoning here. Unfortunately these do not describe how individuals such as Archimedes or Galileo or Newton actually hit upon the ideas that led to their discoveries. In this paper the nineteenth century epidemiologist John Snow argues, using the case of a water pump Broad Street, Soho in 1854, that cholera must be transmitted by drinking water. He reasons that there was no particular outbreak or increase of cholera except among the people who were in the habit of drinking the water from the pump. Nearly all the deaths were within a close distance of the pump. People who lived close to the pump but did not use it (such as the employees of a local brewery who only drank ale). But the paper is a reasoning process intended to convince others - it does not necessarily represent the thought process that Snow went through in arriving at his discovery. There is an important distinction between proving something to yourself, and proving it to others.
Is there any common thought process that underlies scientific reasoning and scientific discovery?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Longeway on Ockham on science
There's a neat review here of John Longeway's translation of book III-II of Ockham's Summa Logicae*. I can't vouch for it, as I haven't got hold of the book itself (it is on the reading list), but it seems coherent and well-written (my first line of defence against nonsense on the Internet).
The book is an English translation of Ockham's commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, and includes an extensive commentary and a history of the intellectual background to Ockham's work. Longeway argues for Ockham's importance as the founder of empiricism in the West. According to the review:
Definitely worth acquiring. Unfortunately (and surprisingly) not yet in the Warburg Library, so we shall see if Waterstones can deliver.
* Demonstration and Scientific Knowledge in William of Ockham: A Translation of Summa Logicae III-II: De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio.
The book is an English translation of Ockham's commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, and includes an extensive commentary and a history of the intellectual background to Ockham's work. Longeway argues for Ockham's importance as the founder of empiricism in the West. According to the review:
... he avoided that error of Early Modern empiricism that now seems most
objectionable: the attempt to construct our public world from purely subjective
experience. Ockham is a direct realist, relying on the causal relation between
concept and object to establish the concept's reference. In his view, what makes
belief cognition is the right causal relation between the knower and what is
known, not the possession of a sufficient justification for one's belief.
Definitely worth acquiring. Unfortunately (and surprisingly) not yet in the Warburg Library, so we shall see if Waterstones can deliver.
* Demonstration and Scientific Knowledge in William of Ockham: A Translation of Summa Logicae III-II: De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Supernatural powers
I knew someone years ago - I'll call him Pieter - who was very serious about alternative medicine and even practiced it. He believed in biological energy that emanates from people, and which (if you have the right abilities) you can detect and use to determine the state of their health. One evening I invited him to a drinks at my house, where he met another friend who I will call Francoise. Afterwards, my wife said she thought Francoise was pregnant, and indeed two weeks later Francoise announced that she was.
When I told this to Pieter, he was intrigued. How had my wife known this, given that Francoise had said nothing at the time? (Perhaps he was also a little peeved, given that his own energy detectors had clearly failed).
How had my wife guessed? Francoise had invariably accepted the offer of a glass of wine before this. This time, she only wanted water.
When I told this to Pieter, he was intrigued. How had my wife known this, given that Francoise had said nothing at the time? (Perhaps he was also a little peeved, given that his own energy detectors had clearly failed).
How had my wife guessed? Francoise had invariably accepted the offer of a glass of wine before this. This time, she only wanted water.
Aristotelian science
The Catholic Encyclopedia has a neat characterisation of the difference between the modern sense of 'science' and its medieval and Aristotelian sense. The modern meaning is of course restricted to the natural sciences. The older meaning is wider.
Aristotle defines science as a sure and evident knowledge obtained from
demonstrations. This is identical with St. Thomas's definition of science as the
knowledge of things from their causes. In this sense science comprises the
entire curriculum of university studies.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Philosophy and popular consciousness
Larry Sanger's current battle with Joseph Reagle at Reagle's blog reminds me of odd ways in which philosophers have influenced popular culture. Aristotle is a case in point (but I will leave him for later).
First, there is Sanger's sly link to 'On bullshit' (see also here)by the philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt . Frankfurt's book is brilliant. His aim is to present, using philosophical principles how bullshit "and the related concept of humbug" are distinct from lying. He concludes that the liar is concerned to communicate something false as if it is true. The bullshitter is indifferent to the truth. It is a work of genuine, and serious philosophy, yet it has also penetrated the popular consciousness (I first became aware of Frankfurt when I noticed the book on the rack by the till at Waterstone's, the rack intended for impulse purchases).
Second, there is the influence of philosophical principles, via Sanger, on Wikipedia itself. Sanger took the neutrality policy he wrote for the now-defunct Nupedia and introduced it to Wikipedia in this significant set of edits over December 2001-January 2002. This became the famous Wikipedia policy on 'Neutral Point of View'.
The policy will strike any philosopher as the work of a philosopher. It says, for example, that rather than attempting to state what the truth about T is, one should attempts to state, fairly, the various different views about T. In representing views fairly, we must recognise that on any topic about which there are competing theories, each theory represents a different view of what the truth is, so that its adherents believe other contrary theories are not knowledge.
The policy also makes the distinction between presenting a popular view without asserting the popular view. "Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them". This idea (namely that 'S says that p' and 'it is true that p' have independent truth-conditions) is key to modern (and ancient) work in the philosophy of language. Like Frankfurt's book, Sanger's work on the core policy of Wikipedia involves ideas which are fundamental to philosophy and part of its core set of principles and methodology, but which at the same time has entered popular consciousness in a roundabout and odd way.
First, there is Sanger's sly link to 'On bullshit' (see also here)by the philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt . Frankfurt's book is brilliant. His aim is to present, using philosophical principles how bullshit "and the related concept of humbug" are distinct from lying. He concludes that the liar is concerned to communicate something false as if it is true. The bullshitter is indifferent to the truth. It is a work of genuine, and serious philosophy, yet it has also penetrated the popular consciousness (I first became aware of Frankfurt when I noticed the book on the rack by the till at Waterstone's, the rack intended for impulse purchases).
Second, there is the influence of philosophical principles, via Sanger, on Wikipedia itself. Sanger took the neutrality policy he wrote for the now-defunct Nupedia and introduced it to Wikipedia in this significant set of edits over December 2001-January 2002. This became the famous Wikipedia policy on 'Neutral Point of View'.
The policy will strike any philosopher as the work of a philosopher. It says, for example, that rather than attempting to state what the truth about T is, one should attempts to state, fairly, the various different views about T. In representing views fairly, we must recognise that on any topic about which there are competing theories, each theory represents a different view of what the truth is, so that its adherents believe other contrary theories are not knowledge.
We could do far worse than to accept, for purposes of working on Wikipedia, that
"human knowledge" includes all different (significant, published) theories on
all different topics are parts of human knowledge. So we're committed to the
goal of representing human knowledge in that sense. This is, to be sure,
something like this is well-established sense of the word "knowledge," a sense
in which what is "known" has changed considerably over the years.
The policy also makes the distinction between presenting a popular view without asserting the popular view. "Writing unbiasedly can be conceived very well as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them". This idea (namely that 'S says that p' and 'it is true that p' have independent truth-conditions) is key to modern (and ancient) work in the philosophy of language. Like Frankfurt's book, Sanger's work on the core policy of Wikipedia involves ideas which are fundamental to philosophy and part of its core set of principles and methodology, but which at the same time has entered popular consciousness in a roundabout and odd way.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Demonstration of the reason why
This month I am struggling with Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. It gives Aristotle's account of demonstration, especially scientific demonstration. There is a nice illustration in Book I chapter 13 of the difference between what the scholastics called propter quid and quia demonstration. Demonstration propter quid (which Muir translates as 'demonstration of the reasoned fact' is when syllogistic reasoning shows us the reason why something happens. For example (ignoring Aristotle's actual science* for sake of argument).
Propter quid
Near things do not twinkle
Planets are near
Planets do not twinkle
The reasoning is from cause (nearness) to effect (not twinkling). With demonstration quia, on the other and, we reason from effect to cause, as follows.
Quia
Things that do not twinkle are near
Planets do not twinkle
Planets are near
Here, you have demonstrated a fact by reasoning from effect to cause. Of course pretty much all demonstration in the natural sciences is of this sort. The medieval Aristotelians were perfectly aware of this.
Objects sufficiently large that they have non-zero apparent diameter when viewed from the Earth do not twinkle
Planets [or nebulas] have non-zero apparent diameter when viewed from the Earth
Planets [or nebulas] do not twinkle
Propter quid
Near things do not twinkle
Planets are near
Planets do not twinkle
The reasoning is from cause (nearness) to effect (not twinkling). With demonstration quia, on the other and, we reason from effect to cause, as follows.
Quia
Things that do not twinkle are near
Planets do not twinkle
Planets are near
Here, you have demonstrated a fact by reasoning from effect to cause. Of course pretty much all demonstration in the natural sciences is of this sort. The medieval Aristotelians were perfectly aware of this.
* On the actual science, I found this helpful. If this is correct, the propter quid syllogism should be as follows:Sometimes that which is more known in reference to us is not more known
absolutely, as happens in natural sciences where the essences and powers of
things are hidden, because they are in matter, but are disclosed to us through
the things which appear outwardly. Hence in these sciences the demonstrations
are for the most part made through effects which are better known in reference
to us but not absolutely. (Lectures on the Posterior Analytics, Book I lecture
5).
Objects sufficiently large that they have non-zero apparent diameter when viewed from the Earth do not twinkle
Planets [or nebulas] have non-zero apparent diameter when viewed from the Earth
Planets [or nebulas] do not twinkle
Friday, October 22, 2010
Liberal education and the internet
Here is an essay by Larry Sanger* that you should read it in full. Sanger writes well, expresses his thought clearly, concisely and with great insight. Nonetheless (for this is the age of the internet where the “complex, dense and cathedral-like structure” of educated prose is a challenge) I shall summarise it here.
Sanger takes three common strands of thought about education and the Internet. The first is the idea that the instant availability of information online makes the memorization of facts unnecessary or less necessary. The second is that collaborative learning is superior, or to be preferred, to outmoded individual learning. The third is that lengthy, complex books are inferior to knowledge constructed by members of a group.
Against the first idea he argues as follows. A strong focus is necessary for true knowledge, but the internet – the instant availability of information online - is a distraction for people who find it difficult to focus, and hinders them acquiring true knowledge. Therefore the internet is a hindrance to true knowledge. Also, true knowledge requires fairly substantial background knowledge to interpret the answer. Background knowledge is more than amassing a lot of facts: it requires assimilation and understanding as well. But assimilation and understanding (by implication – Sanger does not spell it out) take longer than just looking something up.
Sanger considers the objection that new information makes old information redundant, replying that new information does not replace old information. Reading, writing, mathematics and basic science has changed little in the last one hundred years.
Against the second idea, that collaborative learning is superior, or to be preferred, to outmoded individual learning, he argues that while online collaborative learning can be an excellent method of exchanging ideas between the interested and motivated and obtaining free public reviews of work on wikis, this is not a sufficient condition of the most important ingredient, namely interest and motivation. “There is no reason to think that online conversation will necessarily reproduce, in students, either the motivation to pursue interests or the resulting increase in knowledge”
Regarding review of work on wikis or online, the problem is that users of online forums and especially Wikipedia may have “some rather idiosyncratic ideas about the subject .. which arguably wastes the student's time”. Another problem is that a significant level of useful feedback cannot be guaranteed.
A further fundamental difficulty he raises is that true learning is an essentially solitary process. You can find the Decameron online, but you must mentally process it yourself. You may post an essay online but you must engage in “the essentially solitary act of writing” by yourself (I don’t agree entirely with this, but I will leave for now).
In his final point - ‘boring old books’ - Sanger addresses the familiar arguments that books are old-fashioned, not interactive, constitute a single, static, one-way conversation with an individual, and so on. This view declares the irrelevance of most of the thinkers throughout history. Can knowledge, “even the knowledge contained in great books, now something that can be adequately replaced by the collaborative creations of the students themselves?”
There is much to think about here, in a solitary, Cartesian way, so I will leave this for now. I need to assimilate.
* “Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 45, no. 2 (March/April 2010): 14-24
Sanger takes three common strands of thought about education and the Internet. The first is the idea that the instant availability of information online makes the memorization of facts unnecessary or less necessary. The second is that collaborative learning is superior, or to be preferred, to outmoded individual learning. The third is that lengthy, complex books are inferior to knowledge constructed by members of a group.
Against the first idea he argues as follows. A strong focus is necessary for true knowledge, but the internet – the instant availability of information online - is a distraction for people who find it difficult to focus, and hinders them acquiring true knowledge. Therefore the internet is a hindrance to true knowledge. Also, true knowledge requires fairly substantial background knowledge to interpret the answer. Background knowledge is more than amassing a lot of facts: it requires assimilation and understanding as well. But assimilation and understanding (by implication – Sanger does not spell it out) take longer than just looking something up.
If public intellectuals can say, without being laughed at and roundly condemned,
that the Internet makes learning ("memorizing") facts unnecessary because facts
can always be looked up, then I fear that we have come to a very low point in
our intellectual culture. I fear we have completely devalued or, perhaps worse,
forgotten about the deep importance of the sort of nuanced, rational, and
relatively unprejudiced understanding of issues that a liberal education
provides.
Sanger considers the objection that new information makes old information redundant, replying that new information does not replace old information. Reading, writing, mathematics and basic science has changed little in the last one hundred years.
The vast body of essential facts that undergird any sophisticated understanding
of the way the world works does not change rapidly … in most fields, there is
certainly a body of core knowledge.
Against the second idea, that collaborative learning is superior, or to be preferred, to outmoded individual learning, he argues that while online collaborative learning can be an excellent method of exchanging ideas between the interested and motivated and obtaining free public reviews of work on wikis, this is not a sufficient condition of the most important ingredient, namely interest and motivation. “There is no reason to think that online conversation will necessarily reproduce, in students, either the motivation to pursue interests or the resulting increase in knowledge”
Regarding review of work on wikis or online, the problem is that users of online forums and especially Wikipedia may have “some rather idiosyncratic ideas about the subject .. which arguably wastes the student's time”. Another problem is that a significant level of useful feedback cannot be guaranteed.
A further fundamental difficulty he raises is that true learning is an essentially solitary process. You can find the Decameron online, but you must mentally process it yourself. You may post an essay online but you must engage in “the essentially solitary act of writing” by yourself (I don’t agree entirely with this, but I will leave for now).
In his final point - ‘boring old books’ - Sanger addresses the familiar arguments that books are old-fashioned, not interactive, constitute a single, static, one-way conversation with an individual, and so on. This view declares the irrelevance of most of the thinkers throughout history. Can knowledge, “even the knowledge contained in great books, now something that can be adequately replaced by the collaborative creations of the students themselves?”
To be well educated, to be able to pass along the liberal and rational values
that undergird our civilization, we must as a culture retain our ability to
comprehend long, difficult texts written by individuals. Indeed, the single best
method of getting a basic education is to read increasingly difficult and
important books. To be sure, other tasks are essential, especially for training
in scientific and applied fields; there are some people who are very well
trained for various trades without reading many books. But when it comes to
getting a solid intellectual grounding — a foundational, liberal education —
nothing is less dispensable than getting acquainted with many books created by
the "complex, dense" minds of deep-thinking individuals.
There is much to think about here, in a solitary, Cartesian way, so I will leave this for now. I need to assimilate.
* “Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 45, no. 2 (March/April 2010): 14-24
Thursday, October 21, 2010
University of the future?
An amusing example of Web 2.0 nonsense, byJim Barber, vice-chancellor of the University of New England, is being discussed all over Web 2.0. It's the usual stuff. Wikipedia is 10 years old, it's full of 'user-generated content', Encyclopedia Britannica has lost the battle, Wikipedia has 10 million articles, reference to the 'Nature' article which apparently showed Wikpedia was more accurate than Britannica, open-courseware movement, blah blah.
Barber suggests "we could start by dispensing altogether with the term lecturer", and that "with the recent arrival of web 2.0 technologies and the imminent arrival of the National Broadband Network, social interaction is no longer constrained by space and time."
Universities that continue to regard user-generated knowledge as inferior toThis is nonsense. As I have argued in a series of posts over the last two months, Wikipedia is not designed to produce 'user-generated knowledge'. It is a tertiary source reflecting information in secondary sources generated by subject-matter experts - indeed, century-old subject-matter experts. Wikipedia is not putting the academic world out of business.
that of experts and treat technology as an adjunct to genuine learning will find
it increasingly difficult to compete with the new virtual institutions that
offer open courseware without the capital-intensive overheads that campus-based,
proprietorial education imposes.
But who is Wikipedia putting out of work? To understand this, and to understand the truth about 'user-generated knowledge', you could do no better than to read Joseph McCabe's excellent discourse on how encyclopedias are actually written (he is referring to Columbia encyclopedia, not Wikipedia):
But let me say at once that this encyclopedia [i.e. Columbia] has certainly one
distinction, though it does not boast of it. It has more ladies than men on the
list of its editorial and writing staff, 31 females and 28 males. We, of course,
applaud their bold vindication of the new equality of the sexes; or we would
applaud if we could take it as proof that the majority of experts on the many
subjects discussed are now feminine. Unfortunately, we cannot infer that if we
know the technique of creating an encyclopedia. A number of real experts are
paid handsomely to write and sign lengthy articles on subjects of which they are
masters, and the bulk of the work is copied from earlier encyclopedias by a
large number of "Penny-a- liners." None of the articles in the Columbia are
signed. You might infer from this that all articles are written by experts, but
we shall have reason, presently, to doubt this.
Doesn't that remind you of Wikipedia? The bulk of the genuinely encyclopedic content in Wikipedia is copied and pasted from other sources. Indeed, from 100-year old sources, as I have argued in earlier posts. At least traditional encyclopedias plagiarise more recent sources (I have an amusing example of that here)! and at least traditional encyclopedias have lengthy articles by masters of the subject, whereas Wikipedia has practically nothing.
See also the insightful essay by the late Roy Rosenzweig, writing in the The Journal of American History June 2006 about whether history can be open source. It was written four years ago, but his observations about Wikipedia then are true now, even down to the fact that the article Cultural history of the United States was a stub then and is a stub now - with the odd result that a Google search on 'cultural history of the United States' returns the article #1 on the search, even though there is nothing in it, apart from one banal sentence.
Will Wikipedia put professional historians out of business? asks Rosenzweig. No. "Good historical writing requires not just factual accuracy but also a command of the scholarly literature, persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose. He puts his finger on why subjects like history (and, I would argue, philosophy) are so difficult for Wikipedia to get right. Broad synthetic writing is not easily done collaboratively. Good historical writing requires not just factual accuracy but also a command of the scholarly literature, persuasive analysis and interpretations, and clear and engaging prose. Exactly the same is true of philosophy, and more so.
Overall, writing is the Achilles' heel of Wikipedia. Committees rarely writeAnd the bottom line, in any case, is that students are not supposed to rely on any kind of encyclopedia.
well, and Wikipedia entries often have a choppy quality that results from the
stringing together of sentences or paragraphs written by different people. Some
Wikipedians contribute their services as editors and polish the prose of
different articles. But they seem less numerous than other types of volunteers.
Few truly gifted writers volunteer for Wikipedia. Encarta, while less
comprehensive than Wikipedia, generally offers better—especially, more concise—
writing.
Most readers of this journal have not relied heavily on encyclopedias since
junior high school days. And most readers of this journal do not want their
students to rely heavily on encyclopedias—digital or print, free or
subscription, professionally written or amateur and collaborative—for research
papers. One Wikipedia contributor noted that despite her "deep appreciation for
it," she still "roll[s her] eyes whenever students submit papers with Wikipedia
as a citation." "Any encyclopedia, of any kind," wrote another observer, "is a
horrible place to get the whole story on any subject." Encyclopedias "give you
the topline"; they are "the Reader's Digest of deep knowledge." Fifty years ago,
the family encyclopedia provided this "rough and ready primer on some name or
idea"; now that role is being played by the Internet and increasingly by
Wikipedia.
Astronomy and astrology II
Following my previous post about translating the medieval Latin astrologia, I found the article "Astrology" by Charles Burnett in Medieval Latin: an introduction and bibliographical guide (ed. Mantello and Rigg, here at Amazon).
It turns out that astronomia was also a term used in medieval Latin. Astronomia was the mathematical science that measured the position and movements of the heavenly bodies. Astrologia was a physical science based on the (not entirely incorrect) assumption that events on earth (such as tides, but also human characters and events) were influenced by the stars and planets. Isadore divides astrology into the 'natural' part - which concerns events such as tides and seasons - and 'superstitious' part, which concerns the prediction of human character and events.
To complicate matters, thirteenth century authors used the terms interchangeably. Bacon uses the term astrologia to signify astronomy, and astronomia to signify astrology. It is not clear which sense Thomas intends for astrologia in the passage I quoted in the previous post.
It turns out that astronomia was also a term used in medieval Latin. Astronomia was the mathematical science that measured the position and movements of the heavenly bodies. Astrologia was a physical science based on the (not entirely incorrect) assumption that events on earth (such as tides, but also human characters and events) were influenced by the stars and planets. Isadore divides astrology into the 'natural' part - which concerns events such as tides and seasons - and 'superstitious' part, which concerns the prediction of human character and events.
To complicate matters, thirteenth century authors used the terms interchangeably. Bacon uses the term astrologia to signify astronomy, and astronomia to signify astrology. It is not clear which sense Thomas intends for astrologia in the passage I quoted in the previous post.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Astronomy and astrology
Looking at Aquinas in Latin and English I was struck by the way that a modern translator has consistently rendered 'astrologia' as 'astronomy'. And this reminded me of the challenge of translating technical terms in general. Words representing concepts that are pretty much the same across all human societies - say 'dwelling place' or 'age' or 'clothing' - the problem is not so great, although even here there are difficulties ('bungalow').
For technical terms the difficulties are multiplied. Is the word being used as a technical term, or just figuratively? Take materia. Do you translate it as 'material', which is what the Latin really means? Or do you recognise that it may have taken on a technical meaning at the time of use, in which case 'matter' is probably better? There is a similar problem with continuum. Do you render it literally as 'the continuous', or as the mathematical term 'the continuum'?
In both cases, and particularly the latter, you face the added problem of Latin words that were imported into English (mostly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries) because English itself had no corresponding terms for the idea. Nearly all of our philosophical vocabulary, and much of our scientific vocabulary, is taken from Latin. But the technical meaning may have changed considerably since the importation. 'Matter' probably has different connotations now (i.e. as something that has mass) than it did in the medieval period (when mass and weight were not properly distinguished). And 'the continuum' has a special meaning for mathematicians now - in connection with Cantor and uncountability and all that - that it could not have had for medieval writers such as Thomas of Sutton or Ockham.
Terms that have fallen into disuse represent a different problem. 'Quiddity' is simply an English version of the Latin 'quidditas'. Both are invented terms, and represent an utterly outmoded philosophical theory. Thus it means whatever the Latin writers thought it meant. But then you have to explain what they did mean, and that is difficult, because it is not clear to anyone what they did mean, and it probably wasn't clear even to them, either. There are further difficulties with terms that have acquired a common use outside science, or which are of 'general intellectual interest' not specific to any discipline. For example 'per se'. Does the common use reflect the real, original meaning, given that 'per se' and 'quiddity' really live in the same house and form part of the same outmoded theory? Are we, as it were, being eliminativists about quiddity, but reductivists about 'per se'? A priori is another problem that I discussed earlier.
Finally, astrologia. Do we translate it as 'astronomy' or 'astrology'. For 'astronomy', there is the argument that Aquinas was writing about the science of his time, which included the study of heavenly bodies that they called astrologia. The modern equivalent of that is astronomy'. For 'astrology' there is the argument that astrologia, as a theory, was much closer if not identical to what we call 'astrology', as the name suggests. It involved a smaller number of planets, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe, and the theory that they physics of the sub-lunary sphere was fundamentally different from that of the heavenly bodies, plus many other wrong ideas, including that the heavenly bodies somehow influenced human life and thought. You might argue that Aquinas thought astrologia was a science, whereas 'astrology' is now just a jokey thing you find in the darker parts of the Daily Mail, but the reply to that is that plenty of people still do think that astrology is a science.
This is a question about translation, the only resolution of which is to supply the reader with both the original and the translation in close proximity, which is the purpose of the Logic Museum. But it is connected with a deeper question about the connection between science and philosophy, which I shall explore later.
For technical terms the difficulties are multiplied. Is the word being used as a technical term, or just figuratively? Take materia. Do you translate it as 'material', which is what the Latin really means? Or do you recognise that it may have taken on a technical meaning at the time of use, in which case 'matter' is probably better? There is a similar problem with continuum. Do you render it literally as 'the continuous', or as the mathematical term 'the continuum'?
In both cases, and particularly the latter, you face the added problem of Latin words that were imported into English (mostly in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries) because English itself had no corresponding terms for the idea. Nearly all of our philosophical vocabulary, and much of our scientific vocabulary, is taken from Latin. But the technical meaning may have changed considerably since the importation. 'Matter' probably has different connotations now (i.e. as something that has mass) than it did in the medieval period (when mass and weight were not properly distinguished). And 'the continuum' has a special meaning for mathematicians now - in connection with Cantor and uncountability and all that - that it could not have had for medieval writers such as Thomas of Sutton or Ockham.
Terms that have fallen into disuse represent a different problem. 'Quiddity' is simply an English version of the Latin 'quidditas'. Both are invented terms, and represent an utterly outmoded philosophical theory. Thus it means whatever the Latin writers thought it meant. But then you have to explain what they did mean, and that is difficult, because it is not clear to anyone what they did mean, and it probably wasn't clear even to them, either. There are further difficulties with terms that have acquired a common use outside science, or which are of 'general intellectual interest' not specific to any discipline. For example 'per se'. Does the common use reflect the real, original meaning, given that 'per se' and 'quiddity' really live in the same house and form part of the same outmoded theory? Are we, as it were, being eliminativists about quiddity, but reductivists about 'per se'? A priori is another problem that I discussed earlier.
Finally, astrologia. Do we translate it as 'astronomy' or 'astrology'. For 'astronomy', there is the argument that Aquinas was writing about the science of his time, which included the study of heavenly bodies that they called astrologia. The modern equivalent of that is astronomy'. For 'astrology' there is the argument that astrologia, as a theory, was much closer if not identical to what we call 'astrology', as the name suggests. It involved a smaller number of planets, the idea that the earth was the centre of the universe, and the theory that they physics of the sub-lunary sphere was fundamentally different from that of the heavenly bodies, plus many other wrong ideas, including that the heavenly bodies somehow influenced human life and thought. You might argue that Aquinas thought astrologia was a science, whereas 'astrology' is now just a jokey thing you find in the darker parts of the Daily Mail, but the reply to that is that plenty of people still do think that astrology is a science.
This is a question about translation, the only resolution of which is to supply the reader with both the original and the translation in close proximity, which is the purpose of the Logic Museum. But it is connected with a deeper question about the connection between science and philosophy, which I shall explore later.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
What is Wikipedia doing with our money?
Events again take over again. In the Examiner today, Greg Kohs reports that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) which runs Wikipedia awarded a contract to a consulting firm which had close connections to a WMF employee. The contract was not put out to competitive bid and when interviewed by Kohs the executive director (Sue Gardner) said she did not know what it cost. This is an obvious concern. WMF is entirely financed by donations. They have a fiduciary responsibility to be responsible with that money, and to use it in ways that they told the donors they would use it. Not even to know how they are using it is irresponsible.
This is almost certainly the reason why Kohs was banned from the WMF mailing list. Why I was blocked is still unclear, although the concerns I expressed there are similar to Kohs. I like the mission of the WMF to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". But I have a concern that the WMF is not pursuing this mission, that it is (for example) deliberately ignoring the problem of plagiarism, use of outdated or biased sources, as well as sources that are blatantly incorrect.
How can we trust an organisation that claims it is committed to free dissemination of information, and yet rigorously prohibits any dissemination of information about itself?
This is almost certainly the reason why Kohs was banned from the WMF mailing list. Why I was blocked is still unclear, although the concerns I expressed there are similar to Kohs. I like the mission of the WMF to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". But I have a concern that the WMF is not pursuing this mission, that it is (for example) deliberately ignoring the problem of plagiarism, use of outdated or biased sources, as well as sources that are blatantly incorrect.
How can we trust an organisation that claims it is committed to free dissemination of information, and yet rigorously prohibits any dissemination of information about itself?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Free culture?
Today I was going to write something serious about encyclopedias, but events have overtaken all that. Today Gregory Kohs has been banned from the mailing list ('foundation-l') run by the Wikimedia Foundation ('WMF'), and I have been put 'on moderation' (meaning my posts are monitored for any 'negative comment'). Our crime? Greg has been making a series of well-argued posts about the potential misuse of funds by the WMF. For example, he questioned the connection between the WMF and a firm it hired for a donor survey. For more about this, and for an excellent summary of why you shouldn't donate to Wikipedia, see his well-argued essay here.
My fault was to make the same sort of comments about Wikipedia and 'free culture' in general as I have been making here, for example about Andronicus of Rhodes - "if Wikipedia now is relying on century-old sources, what sources will Wikipedia be relying on in 100 years time? For Wikipedia has apparently made traditional sources obsolete". This seems to have caused an outcry. Fred Bauder, a lawyer who has close connections to the project, writes "This list is for people who support the project, not those who are actively opposing it . Gerard Meissen says "Mr Damian uses hyperbole to the extend [sic] that you would believe there is nothing good to be found in Wikipedia".
I don't particularly mind - far more people read this blog than the WMF mailing list. In fact, I find it fascinating and I love the absurdity of it. The advocates of free speech and free culture preventing open discussion and critique of the very idea of free speech and free culture. And in any case, actions like these are much more convincing evidence for my views about Wikipedia, than anything I could write about here.
My fault was to make the same sort of comments about Wikipedia and 'free culture' in general as I have been making here, for example about Andronicus of Rhodes - "if Wikipedia now is relying on century-old sources, what sources will Wikipedia be relying on in 100 years time? For Wikipedia has apparently made traditional sources obsolete". This seems to have caused an outcry. Fred Bauder, a lawyer who has close connections to the project, writes "This list is for people who support the project, not those who are actively opposing it . Gerard Meissen says "Mr Damian uses hyperbole to the extend [sic] that you would believe there is nothing good to be found in Wikipedia".
I don't particularly mind - far more people read this blog than the WMF mailing list. In fact, I find it fascinating and I love the absurdity of it. The advocates of free speech and free culture preventing open discussion and critique of the very idea of free speech and free culture. And in any case, actions like these are much more convincing evidence for my views about Wikipedia, than anything I could write about here.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Andronicus of Rhodes
A remark by Boethius about Andronicus of Rhodes took me on a search for the man. As usual, Wikipedia came up. I was struck again, as so many times before, by Wikipedia's reliance on old out-of-copyright material mostly from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and by the ironic contrast between the advanced technology which led to the birth of the "Web 2.0" project, and the sort of material that ends in it - informative and interesting but essentially obsolete scholarship from more than a hundred years ago.
I have compiled a table below showing how the Wikipedia article on Andronicus was entirely plagiarised from two sources. Most of it is from William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, with the exception of two short passages taken verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article about him (in bold). The only difference is the part at the end which was omitted from Wikipedia (presumably because too dull or serious).
There is now much better scholarship available about Andronicus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article is a good start. But the SEP project involves professional philosophers who are rewarded for their contribution by having their name against the article, and by the guarantee of protection against vandalism of the 'anyone can edit' sort. Interesting as the project is, I don't think we will ever see anything of real value from Wikipedia.
If Wikipedia is around in 100 years time, will the historical information in it still be 100 years out of date? But then which encyclopedias will it use? This was supposed to be the project that made traditional encyclopedias obsolete.
I have compiled a table below showing how the Wikipedia article on Andronicus was entirely plagiarised from two sources. Most of it is from William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, with the exception of two short passages taken verbatim from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article about him (in bold). The only difference is the part at the end which was omitted from Wikipedia (presumably because too dull or serious).
There is now much better scholarship available about Andronicus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article is a good start. But the SEP project involves professional philosophers who are rewarded for their contribution by having their name against the article, and by the guarantee of protection against vandalism of the 'anyone can edit' sort. Interesting as the project is, I don't think we will ever see anything of real value from Wikipedia.
If Wikipedia is around in 100 years time, will the historical information in it still be 100 years out of date? But then which encyclopedias will it use? This was supposed to be the project that made traditional encyclopedias obsolete.
| Smith | Wikipedia |
|---|---|
| ANDRONICUS of RHODES, a Peripatetic philosopher, who is reckoned as the tenth of Aristotle's successors, | Andronicus of Rhodes (fl c 60 BC) was a Greek philosopher from Rhodes who was also the eleventh scholarch of the Peripatetic school[Ammonius, In de Int 524] |
| was at the head of the Peripatetic school at Rome, about B C 53, and was the teacher of Boethus of Sidon, with whom Strabo studied (Strabxivpp 655,757; Ammon, in Aristot Categ P8, , a, ed Ald) | He was at the head of the Peripatetic school at Rome, about 58 BC, and was the teacher of Boethus of Sidon, with whom Strabo studied[ Strabo, xiv; Ammonius, in Aristot Categ] |
| We know little more of the life of Andronicus, but he is of special interest in the history of philosophy, from the statement of Plutarch (Sull, c 26), that he published a new edition of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus, which formerly belonged to the library of Apellicon, and were brought to Rome by Sulla with the rest of Apellicon’s library in BC 84 | We know little more of the life of Andronicus, but he is of special interest in the history of philosophy, from the statement of Plutarch,[ Plutarch, Sulla c 26] that he published a new edition of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus, which formerly belonged to the library of Apellicon, and were brought to Rome by Sulla with the rest of Apellicon's library in 84 BC |
| Tyrannio commenced this task, but apparently did not do much towards it, (Comp Porphyry vit Plotin C24; Boethius ad Aristot de Interpret 292 ed Basil 1570) The arrangement which Andronicus made of Aristotle's writings seems to be the one which forms the basis of our present editions and we are probably indebted to him for the preservation of a large number of Aristotle's works | Tyrannion commenced this task, but apparently did not do much towards it [Comp Porphyry, Vit Plotin c 24; Boethius, ad Aristot de Interpret] The arrangement which Andronicus made of Aristotle's writings seems to be the one which forms the basis of our present editions and we are probably indebted to him for the preservation of a large number of Aristotle's works |
| Andronicus wrote a work upon Aristotle, the fifth book of which contained a complete list of the philosopher's writings, and he also wrote commentaries upon the Physics, Ethics, and Categories | Andronicus wrote a work upon Aristotle, the fifth book of which contained a complete list of the philosopher's writings, and he also wrote commentaries upon the Physics, Ethics, and Categories |
| None of these works is extant, for the paraphrase of the Nicomachean Ethics, which is ascribed to Andronicus of Rhodes, was written by someone else, and may have been the work of Andronicus Callistus of Thessalonica | None of these works is extant Two treatises are sometimes erroneously attributed to him, one On Emotions, the other a commentary on Aristotle's Ethics (really by Constantine Palaeocapa in the 16th century, or by John Callistus of Thessalonica) |
| , who was professor at Rome, Bologna, Florence, and Paris, in the latter half of the fifteenth century Andronicus Callistus was the author of the work Peri Pathon, which was also ascribed to Andronicus of Rhodes, The Peri Pathon was first published by Hoschel, Aug Vi del 1594, and the Paraphrase by Heinsius as an anonymous work, Lugd, Bat 1607, and afterwards by Heinsius as the work of Andronicus of Rhodes Lugd Bat 1617, with the Peri Pathon attached to it The two works were printed at Cantab 167? and Oxon 1809 (Stahr, Aristotelia, ii p129) |
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Bat's eye view
Thomas' commentary on Book II of Aristotle's Metaphysics ("Alpha the lesser") is here. On reading it again, I was struck by Aristotle's comment here as well as by Thomas' lengthy comment on it from n7 to n14. Aristotle says (Ross's translation)
Is that right? How is this idea related to the distinction between a posteriori and a priori that I discussed here? A priori reasoning is from what is logically prior to what is derivable from it. The exemplar is geometric and mathematical reasoning, and in that sense the truth must be easy, for we begin with self-evident truths, and move from them to other truths which are less evident, but logically deducible. A posteriori reasoning is from effect - typically observed effect - to cause. The exemplar being the truth attained by the natural sciences, which is clearly difficult to get hold of, as I suggested earlier.
But is that what Aristotle has in mind? Probably not. The difficulty of a posteriori investigation - from effect to cause - is precisely because the cause is not visible to us. This is clearly not like the case of the sun. Thomas interprets him as follows:
The analogy is between the weakness of an owl's eye (or a bat's eye, or a mole's eye) and the weakness of our intellect. The difficulty is not a matter to be resolved by scientific investigation, i.e. natural scientific investigation. The problem (according to Thomas) is that the human mind cannot be elevated to the level of knowing the essences (quidditates) of immaterial substances because they are not on the same level as sensible substances. The difficulty is not in things but in us.
And here you have the fundamental problem of understanding the Metaphysics, indeed the problem of understanding the project of all Western philosophy. Is it a fundamentally rational project? But as Hugh Lawson-Tancred says in his excellent introduction to and commentary on the book, "it seems excessively implausible that mere rumination on some of the more elementary features of our quotidian experience could lead to a profound revision of our conception of the universe". Or is it essentially mystical, as the popular meaning of the word metaphysics suggests? More later.
Perhaps, too, as difficulties are of two kinds, the cause of the presentAristotle and Thomas are commenting on how reaching the truth is both difficult and easy. It is easy (according to Aristotle) in the sense that the sun is the most obvious and visible object in the world. It is so obvious, in fact, that the eyes of a bat are blinded by it, and cannot see it (Thomas mentions owls, and other translations have moles, I think). Thus, the truth is right before us, and in an obvious way. Yet we are blinded by it, and cannot grasp it.
difficulty is not in the facts but in us. For as the eyes of bats are to the
blaze of day, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature
most evident of all.
Is that right? How is this idea related to the distinction between a posteriori and a priori that I discussed here? A priori reasoning is from what is logically prior to what is derivable from it. The exemplar is geometric and mathematical reasoning, and in that sense the truth must be easy, for we begin with self-evident truths, and move from them to other truths which are less evident, but logically deducible. A posteriori reasoning is from effect - typically observed effect - to cause. The exemplar being the truth attained by the natural sciences, which is clearly difficult to get hold of, as I suggested earlier.
But is that what Aristotle has in mind? Probably not. The difficulty of a posteriori investigation - from effect to cause - is precisely because the cause is not visible to us. This is clearly not like the case of the sun. Thomas interprets him as follows:
Obviously, then, the difficulty experienced in knowing the truth is due
principally to some weakness on the part of our intellect. From this it follows
that our soul’s intellectual power is related to those immaterial beings, which
are by nature the most knowable of all, as the eyes of owls are to the light of
day, which they cannot see because their power of vision is weak, although they
do see dimly lighted things.
The analogy is between the weakness of an owl's eye (or a bat's eye, or a mole's eye) and the weakness of our intellect. The difficulty is not a matter to be resolved by scientific investigation, i.e. natural scientific investigation. The problem (according to Thomas) is that the human mind cannot be elevated to the level of knowing the essences (quidditates) of immaterial substances because they are not on the same level as sensible substances. The difficulty is not in things but in us.
And here you have the fundamental problem of understanding the Metaphysics, indeed the problem of understanding the project of all Western philosophy. Is it a fundamentally rational project? But as Hugh Lawson-Tancred says in his excellent introduction to and commentary on the book, "it seems excessively implausible that mere rumination on some of the more elementary features of our quotidian experience could lead to a profound revision of our conception of the universe". Or is it essentially mystical, as the popular meaning of the word metaphysics suggests? More later.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Aristotle on the history of philosophy
New in the Logic Museum: the commentary on the first boook of Aristotle's Metaphysics. It includes a comprehensive set of links to Ross's (English) text of the same book here. Aquinas' commentary is always clear and is still a good introduction to Aristotle, whose writing is terse and obscure. Once Google has the text indexed, you will also be able to search it using the Museum's Latin site searcher.
By coincidence, there was a Horizon programme on British television last night: What Happened Before the Big Bang? I was struck by the resemble to Aristotle, in many ways. They say "They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin?" Aristotle says "For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. " The scientists in the program presented a bewildering variety of theories about what may have happened before the Big Bang. Aristotle refers to a bewildering variety of theories proposed by different pre-Socratic philosophers about the origin and fundamental causes of the universe. The scientists were divided between material accounts of the universe, and purely mathematical-theoretical ones. The pre-Socratics included those who thought matter was the fundamental principle of being, as well as those (the Pythagoreans) who thought that number explained everything. Many of the modern scientific ideas were pretty strange (the scientists interviewed included Roger Penrose, author of the idiotic The Emperors New Mind). Practically all the ancient Greek ideas were equally daft. Thales thought the world was made of water. Hesiod thought the basic principles were love and strife.
So nothing has changed. In particular, no one seems to have an answer, which is depressing, but then still we have that sense of wonder, which is good. More on Book I later.
By coincidence, there was a Horizon programme on British television last night: What Happened Before the Big Bang? I was struck by the resemble to Aristotle, in many ways. They say "They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin?" Aristotle says "For it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about the genesis of the universe. " The scientists in the program presented a bewildering variety of theories about what may have happened before the Big Bang. Aristotle refers to a bewildering variety of theories proposed by different pre-Socratic philosophers about the origin and fundamental causes of the universe. The scientists were divided between material accounts of the universe, and purely mathematical-theoretical ones. The pre-Socratics included those who thought matter was the fundamental principle of being, as well as those (the Pythagoreans) who thought that number explained everything. Many of the modern scientific ideas were pretty strange (the scientists interviewed included Roger Penrose, author of the idiotic The Emperors New Mind). Practically all the ancient Greek ideas were equally daft. Thales thought the world was made of water. Hesiod thought the basic principles were love and strife.
So nothing has changed. In particular, no one seems to have an answer, which is depressing, but then still we have that sense of wonder, which is good. More on Book I later.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Aquinas in the Logic Museum: IIa 49-70
10 October 2010. Questions 49-70 of the first part of the second book of Summa Theologiae. Concerning habits in general, their causes and effects; the virtues - intellectual, moral, cardinal and theological; the gifts, beatitudes and blessings of the Holy Ghost.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Argument by equal reasoning
What is an argument by 'equal reasoning' (Latin: pari ratione, sometimes anglo-fied as 'by parity of reason/ing')? Is it the same as an argument from analogy? In his System of Logic (Book III Chapter II "Of Inductions Improperly So Called"), J.S. Mill characterises it as follows (my emphasis):
A similar method is commonly used to show that an argument is invalid. My opponent and I agree that A is true, but he believes that B follows from A. I object that if B followed from A, then 'by equal reasoning' D would follow from C. But we both agree that while C is true, D is not. Therefore B cannot follow from A. My argument depends on the logical form of the argument from A to B, and from C to D, as being essentially the same. Woods and Hudak explain it well*. Although two different arguments differ substantially in their surface structure, they may possess a common 'deep structure', so that one could not consistently hold that one argument is valid, and the other not. Thus:
1. A possesses a deep structure whose logical form provides that the premisses of A bear relation R to its conclusion
2. Argument B shares with A the same deep structure
3. There, B possesses a deep structure whose logical form provides that its premisses likewise bear R to its conclusion.
4. Hence, B is an analogue of A. A and B are good or bad arguments, by parity of reasoning, so-called.
But Woods and Husak also call this an "analogical argument". Is that right? And is the same as an argument I had with a vegetarian years ago? She argued as follows
P1 It is wrong to kill animals for use by human beings
P2 Eating animals is an example of killing animals for use by human beings,
C It is wrong to eat animals.
I pointed out that the following argument was also valid
P1 It is wrong to kill animals for use by human beings
P2 Wearing leather shoes is an example of killing animals for use by human beings,
C It is wrong to wear leather shoes.
Which caused some difficulty for her, as she was fond of (very expensive) leather court shoes. She first denied that the cases really were the same, then ended up modifying the major premiss to 'it is wrong to directly cause the death of animals for use by human beings', arguing that the manufacture of leather is a only by-product of the food industry, and not a direct cause of their death. But this is not an issue about the validity of an argument, but rather its soundness. An argument is unsound if one of its premisses is false. The vegetarian conceded the identity of logical form, and defended the validity of the argument. But it was the minor premiss where the problem lay. Wearing leather shoes is not an example of killing animals for a certain purpose.
According to Juthe, they are sometimes presented as inductive probable arguments. He cites Copi and Burgess Jackson 1992**. Juthe denies this, saying that a true argument by analogy is where the inference goes via an 'analogical relation'. He cites the 'classic case' of Mill's argument for other minds: other humans have bodies like me, act in the same way as me, in cases which from my experience have the same causes, namely feelings and thoughts which only I can observe. Therefore other humans have feelings and thoughts. But this is clearly not the same as argument by equal reasoning.
It seems there is some confusion about the precise distinction between argument by analogy, and argument by 'equal reasoning'.
* "By Parity of Reasoning", *Informal Logic XI.3, 1989
** Informal Logic, Macmillan 1982
This appears very similar to what Kit Fine calls 'argument by arbitrary object'- see here e.g. Take any A. It can be demonstrated that this particular A is a B. But this was any A. Therefore every A is a B.Having shown that the three angles of the triangle ABC are together equal to two
right angles, we conclude that this is true of every other triangle, not because
it is true of ABC, but for the same reason which proved it to be true of ABC. If
this were to be called Induction, an appropriate name for it would be, induction
by parity of reasoning . But the term can not properly belong to it; the
characteristic quality of Induction is wanting, since the truth obtained, though
really general, is not believed on the evidence of particular instances. We do
not conclude that all triangles have the property because some triangles have,
but from the ulterior demonstrative evidence which was the ground of our
conviction in the particular instances.
A similar method is commonly used to show that an argument is invalid. My opponent and I agree that A is true, but he believes that B follows from A. I object that if B followed from A, then 'by equal reasoning' D would follow from C. But we both agree that while C is true, D is not. Therefore B cannot follow from A. My argument depends on the logical form of the argument from A to B, and from C to D, as being essentially the same. Woods and Hudak explain it well*. Although two different arguments differ substantially in their surface structure, they may possess a common 'deep structure', so that one could not consistently hold that one argument is valid, and the other not. Thus:
1. A possesses a deep structure whose logical form provides that the premisses of A bear relation R to its conclusion
2. Argument B shares with A the same deep structure
3. There, B possesses a deep structure whose logical form provides that its premisses likewise bear R to its conclusion.
4. Hence, B is an analogue of A. A and B are good or bad arguments, by parity of reasoning, so-called.
But Woods and Husak also call this an "analogical argument". Is that right? And is the same as an argument I had with a vegetarian years ago? She argued as follows
P1 It is wrong to kill animals for use by human beings
P2 Eating animals is an example of killing animals for use by human beings,
C It is wrong to eat animals.
I pointed out that the following argument was also valid
P1 It is wrong to kill animals for use by human beings
P2 Wearing leather shoes is an example of killing animals for use by human beings,
C It is wrong to wear leather shoes.
Which caused some difficulty for her, as she was fond of (very expensive) leather court shoes. She first denied that the cases really were the same, then ended up modifying the major premiss to 'it is wrong to directly cause the death of animals for use by human beings', arguing that the manufacture of leather is a only by-product of the food industry, and not a direct cause of their death. But this is not an issue about the validity of an argument, but rather its soundness. An argument is unsound if one of its premisses is false. The vegetarian conceded the identity of logical form, and defended the validity of the argument. But it was the minor premiss where the problem lay. Wearing leather shoes is not an example of killing animals for a certain purpose.
According to Juthe, they are sometimes presented as inductive probable arguments. He cites Copi and Burgess Jackson 1992**. Juthe denies this, saying that a true argument by analogy is where the inference goes via an 'analogical relation'. He cites the 'classic case' of Mill's argument for other minds: other humans have bodies like me, act in the same way as me, in cases which from my experience have the same causes, namely feelings and thoughts which only I can observe. Therefore other humans have feelings and thoughts. But this is clearly not the same as argument by equal reasoning.
It seems there is some confusion about the precise distinction between argument by analogy, and argument by 'equal reasoning'.
* "By Parity of Reasoning", *Informal Logic XI.3, 1989
** Informal Logic, Macmillan 1982
Aquinas on the passions
Now available in the Logic Museum. Thomas explores and analyses the phenomena of love and hatred, concupiscience and delight, pain and sorrow, fear and daring, and anger.
Friday, October 08, 2010
What did Aquinas know about Islam?
An interesting page here. What did Thomas know about Islam? There are two specific references in his works. One at the beginning of Summa contra gentiles, written for Dominicans who were going to preach in Muslim territories, the other, De rationibus fidei contra Saracenos, Graecos et Armenos ad Cantorem Antiochenum*, where Thomas considers the main objections which Muslims make to the Catholic Faith, such as the possibility of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, the wisdom of the Crucifixion and human liberty before divine predestination.
There are some interesting summaries of which Islamic philosophers and which of their works are mentioned by Thomas, and which of their works he appears not to have known.
See also Joseph Kenny's website here. Many translations of Aquinas.
*Now in parallel Latin-English at the Logic Museum.
There are some interesting summaries of which Islamic philosophers and which of their works are mentioned by Thomas, and which of their works he appears not to have known.
See also Joseph Kenny's website here. Many translations of Aquinas.
*Now in parallel Latin-English at the Logic Museum.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Aquinas in the Logic Museum
29 September 2010. Questions 1-21 of the first part of the second book of Summa Theologiae. Index page here. This is part of a continuing project to take the whole work (three books) into a parallel Latin-English version (the only one on the web). There is now full indexing on the questions for Book II. For example, if you want to link to q. 19 a. 8 arg. 1, use the link as follows: authors/aquinas/summa/Summa-IIa-18-21.htm#q19a8arg1. More to come.
Friday, October 01, 2010
The 20 most important philosophy articles
This week I am fascinated by the page here which reflects my continuing fascination with Wikipedia itself, and the question of why it is generally good in certain areas (mathematics or biography for example), why equally bad in others (economics, psychology), and why it completely stinks in the area of philosophy. It is a list of all articles categorised as philosophy in Wikipedia, with an assessment of their importance and quality. On the importance of each article, I think it is roughly right. There are some articles almost entirely unrelated to philosophy, such as Council communism and (bizarrely) Andy Warhol. There is the usual political correctness of balancing 'Western' philosophy with 'Eastern' philosophy, even though these are not different species of the same genus, but something radically different.
But regarding the 'top' importance articles I think the selection has it about right. If I had to choose the 20-30 most important philosophy articles? Clearly the subject and its main branches: Philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Logic, Political philosophy, Aesthetics. Also the 'philosophies of' mind, language, mathematics, religion, science. The periods of philosophy Ancient, Medieval, Early modern, contemporary, and an article on the history to thread them together. The 'transcendentals' such as essence, existence, identity, truth, time, and so on. The main 'tendencies' - Realism, Nominalism, Idealism, Scepticism. Major historical figures always difficult, but if forced to choose two or three from each period I would go for Aristotle and Plato; Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham; Locke, Berkeley, Hume; Kant and Hegel; Russell and Wittgenstein.
On the subject of quality, more later, although this snippet from the Aristotle article may amuse you.
But regarding the 'top' importance articles I think the selection has it about right. If I had to choose the 20-30 most important philosophy articles? Clearly the subject and its main branches: Philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Logic, Political philosophy, Aesthetics. Also the 'philosophies of' mind, language, mathematics, religion, science. The periods of philosophy Ancient, Medieval, Early modern, contemporary, and an article on the history to thread them together. The 'transcendentals' such as essence, existence, identity, truth, time, and so on. The main 'tendencies' - Realism, Nominalism, Idealism, Scepticism. Major historical figures always difficult, but if forced to choose two or three from each period I would go for Aristotle and Plato; Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham; Locke, Berkeley, Hume; Kant and Hegel; Russell and Wittgenstein.
On the subject of quality, more later, although this snippet from the Aristotle article may amuse you.
Even Plato had difficulties with logic; although he had a reasonable
conception of a deducting system, he could never actually construct one and
relied instead on his dialectic. Consequently, Plato realized that a method for
obtaining conclusions would be most beneficial. He never succeeded in devising
such a method, but his best attempt was published in his book Sophist, where he
introduced his division method.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)