Probability as Argument
Feb 17, 2019 14:26:21 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Feb 17, 2019 14:26:21 GMT -6
Empiricism is the study of whatever may be perceived by the senses. Of necessity, this means the data are restricted to temporal realities.
Probability is the study of inexactitude or the character of demographic subsets. That is, it is the inexact science which seeks to objectify percentages of demographic categories, for purposes definition and calculation within the physical and human realm. But to deal with the truths of entire categories on the basis of mere probability is to disregard, or to define from existence, the certainties of life.
Thus statements such as the following are properly expressed in terms of probability.
1. I probably failed that class.
2. Liquid takes the shape of its container.
3. Equilibrium is reached when 95% of the compound is iodized.
4. The sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
5. Seventy percent of public school teachers send their children to private school.
Such statements are more or less probable based upon the number of things that might interfere with the regularity of their behavior. But other statements cannot properly be stated, or even understood, in terms of probability. These might include.
6. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
7. If P is true then Q is true. If Q is true then R is true. Therefore, if P is true then R is true.
8. All men are mortal.
The difference in these statements lies in their relationship to contingency. Logical, or rational certainty, can be predicated only of things not subject to contingency. Thus there can be two types of certainty, logical certainty, and practical certainty. Practical certainty is the result of years and lifetimes of consistent empirical data during which no sort of mitigating contingency has been discovered. Empirical data either of a more contingent or a less observed sort results in nothing stronger than probabilities and statistics. Probability, statistics, and actuarial work all use empirical data but must also deal with many known (and unknown) varieties of contingency.
For the sake of conversation and thought, we are justified in making such statements as “all men are mortal” despite the fact that we have not experienced all men. Were it necessary to have experience of all men before we could predicate anything of the class of men, we could never say anything about them at all. This truth is universally accepted and is considered a certainty, despite the fact that we only know this ‘fact” empirically. For roughly half of all human beings ever to live are alive today, making our empirical “sample only roughly 50%. The reason this statement is held to be certain despite its lack of rational pedigree is that it is not subject to any known contingency that might make it a mere probability.
Another empirical certainty is the law of cause and effect, Only Hume and a few others have ever dared to deny the fact of cause and effect, all the while living their lives by its dictates. If they wanted a door opened, they had to cause it to open. If they wanted something done, they had to cause it to happen, or have someone else cause it to happen. The Law is universal, inviolable, – and empirically derived. Other such empirical certainties are the second law of thermodynamics, The Subject-Object distinction (learned in utero), and continuity of being (also learned in utero).
But we may not reduce very much of empirical knowledge to the realm of certainty, because there are many contingincies over which we have no control or knowledge. For example, I may qualify my remarks with a temporal disclaimer such as: “If the administration did not mess up my grade card, and it has an “F” on it, it is absolutely certain that I failed this class. The contingency (and therefore the lack of certainty) rests on the administration, not on my grade card (which I hold in my hand) or upon the symbol “F” which is true by convention or definition. To go beyond this is word magic and mental masturbation.
The empirical data per se is not the reason that empirical knowledge is thought of as “merely probable.” Rather, it is the variables to which sense data or temporal data is exposed that reduced certainty to “mere” probability. But this is not so serious as many people think. If one provides adequately for the possibilities generated by the variables, the empirical conclusion can be regarded as “practically” certain. The “temporal disclaimer” functions to separate the degree of probability from the empirical statement. Thus it may be claimed of a spacecraft reentering the Earth’s atmosphere “If the heat shield remains intact, the reentry will be successful. Here we are introduced to our old friend the hypothetical premise if P then Q, and thereby the certainty of the consequent is separated from the antecedent.
Both prediction and existential meaning depend on certainty; all else is flux and whistling in the dark. To cite probability in behalf of a system whose behavior or in behalf of a person’s existential meaning, both of which demand certainty (or an immensely high degree of probability, is to short circuit the whole endeavor and to reduce to meaninglessness the whole enterprise. It is to make certainty dependent upon probability which is a patent contradiction of terms.
There are, therefore, three types of “knowledge.” By knowledge, we mean items of the intellect about which we feel confident enough to shape our beliefs and behavior accordingly. The first is the logical certainty of rationalism, i.e. mathematical and logical proofs. About these, there can be no doubt. The second is the practical certainty that although established empirically, is so universally accepted that although only one counterexample is sufficient to falsify it, the overwhelming tendency is to look for an explanation for the anomaly rather than to consign the phenomenon itself to the scrapheap. For example, we “know,” i.e., we are practically certain, that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. If we do not see the sun, we cannot believe we were wrong. Instead, we checked the sky for cloud cover. Or we check the clock to see if it is too early for the sun to “be up.” But if the time is right and there is no cloud cover whatever, only a night sky full of constellations not usually visible at this time of the year, then we will seek some other explanation. It will only be after Herculean efforts at finding an explanation have failed that we will reluctantly, sadly, and perhaps only tentatively, admit that the notion that the sun will invariably rise in the east every morning, is perhaps not certain after all. On this basis, what might have the disciples logically concluded about the permanence and universality of death? Such empirical certainty, when violated, is what caused the ancients to speak of “wonders,” and moderns to speak of “miracles.” Miracles cannot be ascribed to areas of rational certainty or two areas statistically defined as only probabilities. Only that area of empirically known “practical certainty” is susceptible to events which might be deemed miraculous.
Another important fact is that personal, existential meaning cannot be predicated upon practical certainty, but only of rational certainty. As Sartre noted, nothing finite can have any meaning without an infinite reference point. Stated in other terms, no temporal being can have any meaning apart from an eternal reference point. Human despair is the result of not knowing the eternal “I Am.”
- Todd
Probability is the study of inexactitude or the character of demographic subsets. That is, it is the inexact science which seeks to objectify percentages of demographic categories, for purposes definition and calculation within the physical and human realm. But to deal with the truths of entire categories on the basis of mere probability is to disregard, or to define from existence, the certainties of life.
Thus statements such as the following are properly expressed in terms of probability.
1. I probably failed that class.
2. Liquid takes the shape of its container.
3. Equilibrium is reached when 95% of the compound is iodized.
4. The sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
5. Seventy percent of public school teachers send their children to private school.
Such statements are more or less probable based upon the number of things that might interfere with the regularity of their behavior. But other statements cannot properly be stated, or even understood, in terms of probability. These might include.
6. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.
7. If P is true then Q is true. If Q is true then R is true. Therefore, if P is true then R is true.
8. All men are mortal.
The difference in these statements lies in their relationship to contingency. Logical, or rational certainty, can be predicated only of things not subject to contingency. Thus there can be two types of certainty, logical certainty, and practical certainty. Practical certainty is the result of years and lifetimes of consistent empirical data during which no sort of mitigating contingency has been discovered. Empirical data either of a more contingent or a less observed sort results in nothing stronger than probabilities and statistics. Probability, statistics, and actuarial work all use empirical data but must also deal with many known (and unknown) varieties of contingency.
For the sake of conversation and thought, we are justified in making such statements as “all men are mortal” despite the fact that we have not experienced all men. Were it necessary to have experience of all men before we could predicate anything of the class of men, we could never say anything about them at all. This truth is universally accepted and is considered a certainty, despite the fact that we only know this ‘fact” empirically. For roughly half of all human beings ever to live are alive today, making our empirical “sample only roughly 50%. The reason this statement is held to be certain despite its lack of rational pedigree is that it is not subject to any known contingency that might make it a mere probability.
Another empirical certainty is the law of cause and effect, Only Hume and a few others have ever dared to deny the fact of cause and effect, all the while living their lives by its dictates. If they wanted a door opened, they had to cause it to open. If they wanted something done, they had to cause it to happen, or have someone else cause it to happen. The Law is universal, inviolable, – and empirically derived. Other such empirical certainties are the second law of thermodynamics, The Subject-Object distinction (learned in utero), and continuity of being (also learned in utero).
But we may not reduce very much of empirical knowledge to the realm of certainty, because there are many contingincies over which we have no control or knowledge. For example, I may qualify my remarks with a temporal disclaimer such as: “If the administration did not mess up my grade card, and it has an “F” on it, it is absolutely certain that I failed this class. The contingency (and therefore the lack of certainty) rests on the administration, not on my grade card (which I hold in my hand) or upon the symbol “F” which is true by convention or definition. To go beyond this is word magic and mental masturbation.
The empirical data per se is not the reason that empirical knowledge is thought of as “merely probable.” Rather, it is the variables to which sense data or temporal data is exposed that reduced certainty to “mere” probability. But this is not so serious as many people think. If one provides adequately for the possibilities generated by the variables, the empirical conclusion can be regarded as “practically” certain. The “temporal disclaimer” functions to separate the degree of probability from the empirical statement. Thus it may be claimed of a spacecraft reentering the Earth’s atmosphere “If the heat shield remains intact, the reentry will be successful. Here we are introduced to our old friend the hypothetical premise if P then Q, and thereby the certainty of the consequent is separated from the antecedent.
Both prediction and existential meaning depend on certainty; all else is flux and whistling in the dark. To cite probability in behalf of a system whose behavior or in behalf of a person’s existential meaning, both of which demand certainty (or an immensely high degree of probability, is to short circuit the whole endeavor and to reduce to meaninglessness the whole enterprise. It is to make certainty dependent upon probability which is a patent contradiction of terms.
There are, therefore, three types of “knowledge.” By knowledge, we mean items of the intellect about which we feel confident enough to shape our beliefs and behavior accordingly. The first is the logical certainty of rationalism, i.e. mathematical and logical proofs. About these, there can be no doubt. The second is the practical certainty that although established empirically, is so universally accepted that although only one counterexample is sufficient to falsify it, the overwhelming tendency is to look for an explanation for the anomaly rather than to consign the phenomenon itself to the scrapheap. For example, we “know,” i.e., we are practically certain, that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. If we do not see the sun, we cannot believe we were wrong. Instead, we checked the sky for cloud cover. Or we check the clock to see if it is too early for the sun to “be up.” But if the time is right and there is no cloud cover whatever, only a night sky full of constellations not usually visible at this time of the year, then we will seek some other explanation. It will only be after Herculean efforts at finding an explanation have failed that we will reluctantly, sadly, and perhaps only tentatively, admit that the notion that the sun will invariably rise in the east every morning, is perhaps not certain after all. On this basis, what might have the disciples logically concluded about the permanence and universality of death? Such empirical certainty, when violated, is what caused the ancients to speak of “wonders,” and moderns to speak of “miracles.” Miracles cannot be ascribed to areas of rational certainty or two areas statistically defined as only probabilities. Only that area of empirically known “practical certainty” is susceptible to events which might be deemed miraculous.
Another important fact is that personal, existential meaning cannot be predicated upon practical certainty, but only of rational certainty. As Sartre noted, nothing finite can have any meaning without an infinite reference point. Stated in other terms, no temporal being can have any meaning apart from an eternal reference point. Human despair is the result of not knowing the eternal “I Am.”
- Todd