69 million page views

Science, facts, truth #2

Reader comment on item: Immanuel Kant vs. Israel
in response to reader comment: almost contentless

Submitted by Morry (United States), Aug 26, 2010 at 19:24

continuing with the post that I accidentally posted before completing:

THEN the laws of gravity would permit this only if the moon was at a specific distance from earth DIFFERENT from the actual current distance. Scientific knowledge, in other words, enables us to PREDICT events, and to CONQUER NATURE; our understading of the "nature" of nature, enables us to manipulate events so as to make the functioning of natural laws accomplish things we desire. Before we put man made objects into orbit, it was a FACT that there were none in orbit. But scientists had fortunately discovered laws which enabled us to arrange for the existence of NEW FACTS .

scientists enable us to BRING INTO EXISTENCE NEW FACTS WE WISH TO EXIST, which is what's meant by commanding nature -- "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." IE, we have to use the laws of nature to make certain aspects of nature conform to our desires, and to use those laws, we obviously must know what they are. Facts are the input to science, the raw material, and it goes without saying that you want to be careful, to be sure of your facts, before you rely on them to build something that depends on them, such as a theory of magnetism or of the atom or of heat or whatever. Facts are the eyes of scientists, but then once they see those facts clearly, they have to use their brains still further to understand the implications of those facts, and deduce how they relate to each other, ie to hypothesize and ultimately theorize about what causal logic relates them, if there's any causal relationship at all.

When we say that someone is "concerned" with X as a blanket statement intended (in the context) to describe the essesntial preoccupation of that someone, then the X is usually the ULTIMATE concern or object of that someone or that endeavor. Scientists are concerned with putting bread on their table, having good alarm clocks and comfortable shoes, and taking vacations now and then too. These are not generally cited as the things science or scientists are concerned with, though it's a FACT that they are concerned with them. "Facts" come a little closer to the concerns of scientists, qua scientists, than comfy shoes, but they still fall short of being the ESSENTIAL ...they still fall short of being the ULTIMATE concern of science. They are AN essential concern in the process of doing science, somewhere along the way. Yeah, you could say "eating right" is a concern of scientists to, cuz if they all starved to death there would be no more of them to do science for us. But of course facts, per se, facts about the external universe, are indeed a necessary part of any aspect of any COMPLETED scientific accomplishment, though someone who has a bunch of data (facts) collected by others who is trying to find a causal relationship amongst them MAY in some instance have little to no direct concern with the specific facts themselves while he is doing the final step of hypothesizing about their relationship.

Ultimately, facts are the test of any new scientific knowledge: experiments or observations which yield results (facts) that are inconsistent with a hypothesis or theory, will invalidate it. So we need raw input from reality (facts) before we can begin to form any ideas about what principles might govern there connections/relationships to each other, and we need the results of experiments or observations (facts) to confirm or refute the answers we come up with to offer as the principles which may be governing those relationships. So even though facts are the ultimate test of any scientific theory, so what? Everything is a fact, everything real is.

Shoemakers, prostitutes, and poets depend on facts in their work. For scientists, facts function both as input and as confirmation of the output of their work. But the WORK ITSELF ...but the WORK ITSELF that is specifically and essentially the work of science, is to ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OUR UNIVERSE, which is another way of saying "seeking truth" about our unverse. The universe is the sum total of everything that exists, ie of ALL FACTS. Science is not restricted from a concern with any aspect of the universe's contents. It is concerned generally with learning about reality, what it is and how it behaves, ie with facts and with how various types of facts may relate to each other in a causal way. The most broad, all-encompassing, and essential description of this activity is to say that it is the pursuit of truth about the universe we live in, and this subsumes all the other concerns, the other necessary, optional, and incidental concerns it may have.

A small clarification: "necessary" and "essential" are not the same thing either. To live, it is necessary a man have a functioning heart. But that is not the essential defining characteristic of a man. It's impossible to coceive of an actual living human being who has no heart and no circulation of blood, but who yet is a man who lives. These are things essential to his survival, of course, which is one NARROW context in which "essential" and "necessary" can be synonyms. It is necessary OR essential for a man to have eyes if he wishes to see, to have food if he wishes not to starve, to have muscles if he wishes to move. But when we are defining the concept "man," it is NOT correct to say "man is a being with a heart, who eats and moves and....(etc, other things "essential" to various of his many potential activities)." When we are looking for the ESSENTIAL DEFINING characteristic of anything, we are looking for the characteristic which enables us to distinguish that thing from all other things, that concept or class of entities from all other classes. To "define" means to put borders or a box around it and say "it is this, and this is it, and nothing else can enter this definition space, and nothing in this space may leave it."

The DISTINGUISHING or DEFINING characteristic is the one that identifies the concept by conclusively distinguishing it from all other entities. Man's is that he is an animal with a conceptual consciousness, a mental capacity for reasoning. (All definitions must state a broader category, then a characteristic which distinguishes the concept from its broader class -- another topic). So when you are attempting to characterize the essence of scientific activities or scientists, you must provide their DISTINGUISHING characteristic for the definition to be correct. You cannot simply state another trait or characteristic -- even if it's an essential one -- if it is not a DISTINGUISHING essential one. The CONCEPT of a scientist includes ALL his attributes and activities, but the DEFINITION includes only his essential DISTINGUISHING characteristic. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS, to keep thinking clear and logical and to enable correct thinking. If you are dealing with some class of entities in your logical thinking, you must think of them as they are in their entirety, completely, becaause if you omit part of their nature from the concept, then your concept of that class of entities will not be complete, and you may overlook something when you try to think about how such things will behave in relating to other phenomena of the universe. But when you want to be clear in your communication to others AND IN THE LOGIC OF YOUR OWN THINKING about this class of existing things, then you would get hopelessly bogged down if you had to run down the entire list of their characteristics, many of which might be essential characteristics.

What you need is a definition which clearly distinguishes that group of entitites from all others, an essential characteristic which is a DISTINGUISHING one, and that is what you use to DEFINE the concept. You need the concept, and the definition of it. And then for further ease of thinking, you assign a single word to refer to that concept, a word which has a definition too, ie the distinguishing characteristic of that category of existants. A scientist is "a man (the genus, or broader category separating him from the myriad types of things which exist and from which we will then proceed to isolate him as a subcategory) who is engaged in seeking knowledge (truth, if you will) about the universe." He is also a man who has a heart and lungs and so forth, but these are not what distinguishes him from other men (from the genus, or broader category used in the definition). But when we think of a scientist, we know that he does have a heart and lungs as part of his identity, because his identity includes ALL his characteristics as an entity in the universe.
We also know that he is a "rational animal.." but we don't need to spell that out -- we already did that for "man" so we can just look up "man" in the dictionary if we don't already know the definition of the genus we've used in the definitiion of this type of man. And when we do look it up and see "rational animal...." we may then have to look up "animal" as the genus from which "man" was isolated. And so on...working BACKWARDS from the way in which these definitions were originally created. All knowledge is hierarchical -- built on what went before. We keep adding new concepts aand definitions as we learn about them or as they come to our attention or as we create them. We can then use the differentia as the genus for the next level. ONCE WE HAve defined "scientist" by differentiating him from the genus "man" to uniquely identify the concept as a particular subgroup of men, we can then use "scientist" as the genus for defining still more specific subgroups within this defiintioin. EG, we define a meteorologist as "a scientist who studies weather" or an astrophysicist as "a scientist who studies the cosmos" and then we can go on to define a solar scientist as "an astrophysicist who studies the sun" etc etc.

It's very analogous to algebra, where we let X stand for the number of nuts on the scale, so that we can think and draw conclusions proven by logic regardless of how many nuts are involved, and in some problems, solve for their value and know it will be true regardless of whether X refers to pounds of nuts or the pressure of a gas. The point of concepts is to enable reliable and trustworthy logical thinking about enormous numbers of things all at once, with one series of logical steps. The purpose of definitions is to make this process more tractible, to give us a shorthand that will be effective assuring that we never mix apples with oranges in our thinking, to keep the number of mental "variables" we're required to manipulate down to a minimum and still assure us that whatever logical conclusions we draw will automatically apply correctly to ALL instances of the entities under scrutiny.

OK, end of my digression.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (113) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
1"Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" (OSCE) 57 countries) [386 words]RobertSep 30, 2022 11:32286982
1Cooperation by Coercion - Following When True Leadership is Usurped for Reasons of Ambitions of Empire [84 words]M ToveyOct 1, 2022 16:31286982
1New World Order and the United Nations. [382 words]RobertSep 30, 2022 07:45286975
Current American Dollar Currency Demonstrates Changes in American Governance from Constitutionalist to Bureaucratic Authoritarian [321 words]M ToveySep 30, 2022 15:53286975
1Let Muslims disambiguate among their subdivisions [169 words]PrashantApr 2, 2021 14:32265259
2Prashant! What is Judaism and Christianity? [87 words]RobertSep 29, 2022 15:09265259
Judeo-Christianity in A More Basic Covenant Testament [210 words]M ToveySep 29, 2022 21:36265259
1My view of Judaism and Christianity (and Islam) [199 words]PrashantSep 30, 2022 13:48265259
5It's simple: Israel used to be the land of kibbutzes and socialism [43 words]Base MavenSep 26, 2010 04:16178702
1religión e historia [242 words]luciano tantoSep 13, 2010 10:11178196
1Reminds me of this quote, from Solzhenitsyn... [225 words]The Sanity InspectorSep 10, 2010 12:16178002
1Kant...Shmant! [274 words]RoqueSep 2, 2010 00:29177577
Paradigm Shifts [178 words]RobertAug 31, 2010 19:00177514
Wrong [11 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 14:03177514
1Re: Paradigm shift [82 words]Robert VillegasOct 5, 2010 19:04177514
3Kant? A puppet of the Jesuit Order [2141 words]alessandro alboreAug 31, 2010 15:06177508
coo-coo, coo-coo, coo-coo, coo-coo [8 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 13:58177508
Aged 55, Count Wladimir Ledochowski? [15 words]DDec 24, 2021 13:39177508
2The Left, David, and Goliath. [189 words]LynnAug 30, 2010 09:49177456
IV Reich is behind us, TRUE Jews, true gentiles [251 words]alessandro alboreAug 29, 2010 19:01177434
the GOST Nation [2006 words]alessandro alboreAug 29, 2010 07:36177417
Open your eyes, everybody [908 words]alessandro alboreAug 29, 2010 07:06177415
Here is a similar assessment. [23 words]ITZIGAug 29, 2010 04:15177414
Kant vs Israel [97 words]Amo FuchsAug 27, 2010 04:32177347
Location, Location, Location [52 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
CalebAug 25, 2010 14:06177268
Utopia is nowhere! On Mr. Pipes´ addendum dated August 17 concerning the Left. [213 words]Isaac HaskiyaAug 25, 2010 12:06177265
1I do agree [54 words]VladimirAug 25, 2010 10:12177262
5Anti-Israel polemics are rooting for the UN as the new emerging power structure as opposed to nation states. [428 words]TarnowAug 24, 2010 09:44177197
I dissent from Hazony's view [102 words]Peter HerzAug 23, 2010 22:01177173
over-sophistication [119 words]yuval Brandstetter MDAug 23, 2010 10:46177143
American means freedom from or for Religion [41 words]RONAug 24, 2010 00:23177143
1This analysis is true in the case of left thinkers and intellectuals [42 words]Yael F.Aug 22, 2010 06:52177085
3Oversophistication. [60 words]Menchem ChazanAug 21, 2010 15:03177049
Oversimplification [4 words]PenstarrsAug 26, 2010 21:19177049
8The flaw in Hazony's thesis [400 words]Alex SafianAug 21, 2010 12:15177045
1"Immanuel Kant vs. Israel" [203 words]norine krasnogorAug 20, 2010 22:47177034
2KANT VS. ISRAEL [281 words]RafiAug 20, 2010 16:54177024
Paradigm shift not worth a dime [137 words]BernieAug 19, 2010 17:05176987
Cosmopolis by Stephen Toulmin [19 words]Hillel S.Aug 19, 2010 16:41176986
1putting Kuhn and Kant in some context [374 words]mythAug 19, 2010 09:54176971
6Immanuel Kant vs. Israel [1785 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 19, 2010 01:49176950
Immanuel Kant vs. Israel [40 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 22, 2010 03:40176950
1some recent facts about the national idea [189 words]mythAug 22, 2010 06:28176950
Kant vs Israel [142 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 22, 2010 23:05176950
Kant vs Israel [489 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 22, 2010 23:33176950
my response to "some recent facts about the national idea" [183 words]Morry MarkovitzAug 24, 2010 00:17176950
almost contentless [90 words]mythAug 24, 2010 12:29176950
4Science, facts, truth [391 words]MorryAug 26, 2010 19:19176950
4Science, facts, truth #2 [1866 words]MorryAug 26, 2010 19:24176950
"myth" is right: fact and truth are not the same [79 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 14:23176950
Don't be too hard on Kant [276 words]Peter HerzDec 18, 2010 22:02176950
Immanuel Kant vs. Israel , reply to Peter Herz's reply [2267 words]Morry MarkovitzDec 20, 2010 02:21176950
Rejoinder to a pecksniffian [133 words]Honoring TeachersJun 7, 2011 02:41176950
Hatred of Israel [228 words]Ilbert PhillipsAug 19, 2010 00:43176947
don't accept the hazony thesis [67 words]paulAug 18, 2010 15:44176910
1Paradigm here, paradigm there, paradigm everywhere. [235 words]Isaac HaskiyaAug 18, 2010 14:03176901
4Fort Apache, The Middle East. [472 words]Cherif El-AyoutyAug 18, 2010 05:27176884
8Fort Europe [211 words]Bert TateAug 21, 2010 05:04176884
It´s not shifting deelings towards the national state, but new realities [152 words]Lars NielsenAug 18, 2010 05:10176882
3Israel a victim of the paradigm shift dieses [150 words]Prakash KhatiwalaAug 18, 2010 01:31176878
12Yoram Hazony's thesis is probably not correct [333 words]RajeevAug 17, 2010 23:55176877
Great Minds Think Alike [103 words]Stuart FaginAug 17, 2010 23:53176876
Jew hatred to be precise [78 words]Anne JulienneAug 18, 2010 16:55176876
Now I understand [38 words]John W. McGinleyAug 17, 2010 22:33176873
A victim of our own success [98 words]Shepard BarbashAug 17, 2010 22:08176870
What's the difference? [170 words]Yoel LernerAug 17, 2010 21:39176868
2Kant's Revolution [285 words]J KourlasAug 17, 2010 21:28176867
Revolution under Kant and under Islam [229 words]Anne JulienneAug 18, 2010 17:42176867
3Kant as "the founder of the counter-Enlightenment" in the light of his essay "What is Enlightement" [444 words]IanusAug 19, 2010 16:16176867
Kant's not so universal universalism [348 words]Elliott A GreenAug 20, 2010 09:03176867
Comment on Green's Critique of Kant [167 words]J KourlasAug 21, 2010 21:23176867
Read the book [41 words]J KourlasAug 21, 2010 22:02176867
3Reading Kant's Perpetual Peace [418 words]J KourlasAug 22, 2010 09:18176867
response about Kant's Judeophobia [65 words]Elliott A GreenAug 22, 2010 17:48176867
1Doubts as "dogmatic slumber" [123 words]IanusAug 22, 2010 18:05176867
1Kant's "single ruler" paradigm [336 words]Anne JulienneAug 22, 2010 21:45176867
4Death to Israel Isn't a Theory [316 words]HistoryscoperAug 17, 2010 21:22176866
3Mohammed vs. Israel , not Kant ! [121 words]IanusAug 18, 2010 18:38176866
3Yoram Hazony is not so smart [233 words]yonatan silvermanAug 17, 2010 21:21176865
Yonatan silverman on Yoram Hazony [69 words]efraim CarlsenMar 4, 2013 15:12176865
Myopic Paradigm [140 words]Marilyn AbramovitzAug 17, 2010 20:30176861
Explanation [14 words]DennisWojciakAug 17, 2010 19:57176857
3Israel vs. Kant - Following the True Paradigm - Israel is Not Immune - But Will Recover [816 words]M. ToveyAug 17, 2010 19:33176854
If the truth be known ... [25 words]Anne JulienneAug 17, 2010 20:17176854
one thing always seems left out [78 words]NoraAug 18, 2010 04:49176854
3One thing is sure [201 words]Solomon TaraganoAug 18, 2010 11:33176854
Shape Shifting Paradigms Always Leave Out One Thing - Truth [409 words]M. ToveyAug 18, 2010 17:36176854
Perpetual Peace in Human Terms Cannot Compare to the Peace That Passes All 'Human' Understanding. [27 words]M. ToveyAug 18, 2010 18:09176854
1One Thing Even More Sure [867 words]M. ToveyAug 23, 2010 12:29176854
Irony - The More Things Seem to Change- the More They Seem the Same [168 words]M ToveyMar 31, 2021 20:01176854
Let us double check Biden's executive orders. [55 words]PrashantApr 1, 2021 19:15176854
Exectuve Decisions - Whose Orders Should Be Observed - The Holy or Unholy [225 words]M ToveyApr 4, 2021 15:49176854
New 'Paradigm': You've Got to Be Kidding! [448 words]JoeAug 17, 2010 18:57176851
Ironic [78 words]Abu NudnikAug 17, 2010 18:38176850
4But something central is Overlooked [687 words]Ron ThompsonAug 17, 2010 18:27176849
1the new pardigm [469 words]gingersnapAug 17, 2010 20:34176849
1The new paradigm doesn't explain enough [221 words]Erich WiegerAug 17, 2010 18:12176847
1Why the anti-Israel hostility? [90 words]TarnowAug 17, 2010 17:29176845
1Kant and Kuhn misunderstood [145 words]Anne JulienneAug 17, 2010 17:26176844
Can't Use Kant to Describe Israel's Dilemma with the World Governments [388 words]M. ToveyAug 19, 2010 18:56176844
Nation states don't need supra-national entities to control themselves [44 words]Abu NudnikOct 5, 2010 14:15176844
What's Holding Us Back? [119 words]Kim BruceAug 17, 2010 17:20176843
Kant's antisemitism [75 words]Paul Lawrence RoseAug 17, 2010 17:06176842
2Kant's antisemitism ? [192 words]IanusAug 18, 2010 15:41176842
Kant and German Antisemitism [144 words]PLRoseAug 27, 2010 21:04176842
3Is criticizing Judaism or Jews ipso facto anti-Semitism ? [429 words]IanusAug 30, 2010 10:31176842
1DEJA VU in 2010.... how frightening [178 words]saraAug 30, 2010 17:15176842
Interesting point of view [71 words]Mike ShapiroAug 17, 2010 17:06176841
2Kant and Islam [105 words]Anne JulienneAug 17, 2010 19:46176841
4Avraham Burg - don't waste your proverbial ink on him. [198 words]Yehuda, Ottawa, CanadaAug 17, 2010 17:00176840
1burg [60 words]solemnmanAug 18, 2010 05:15176840
1Burg - utter scum [86 words]EliyahuAug 23, 2010 04:57176840
burg has no principles [63 words]EliyahuAug 23, 2010 05:01176840

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)