Skip to main content

You Can't Really Punt on Abduction, Stef: Part I



Stefan Molyneux has gone all Trumpet on us.

I've written about Molyneux before, most recently a two-post discussion early this year, keyed to his now-decade-old book, UNIVERSALLY PREFERRED BEHAVIOR (2007) in which he claimed to have figured out what are the rules of behavior all rational beings should follow, and to have inferred from them that the right social system is anarcho-capitalism.

That book wasn't a great one, frankly, and Molyneux at his best is a pale shadow of Murray Rothbard as an anarcho-cap figure. Still, he was on the good guy's side, as I keep score anyway.

Molyneux, though, has progressively defected.  He is now entirely in the MAGA camp. The nation-state may never be legitimate, but it can be legitimate enough! at least if Donald Trump is its CEO.

Or ... something.

The news about Molyneux is that he is out with another book, THE ART OF THE ARGUMENT (2017).  The is some copy from the amazon page: "'The Art of the Argument' shocks the dying art of rational debate back to life, giving you the essential tools you need to fight the escalating sophistry, falsehoods and vicious personal attacks that have displaced intelligent conversations throughout the world." 

 On one level, it's a fairly non-controversial guide to such matters as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning,  the classic proof that Socrates is mortal, a round-up of formal and informal fallacies (the usual suspects) etc. Much of this stuff is unobjectionable, even though it has been done better. Often. 

 Molyneux also wants to make his political points here, on another level. After all, he believes he proved the rightness of his politics ten years ago. All that is necessary now is to explain to the world what it means to have proven something, to cap that accomplishment. 

 As I've just noted, his new Trumpetry politics is quite different from what his politic seemed to be ten years ago but ... let that go. 

 What strikes me as a pragmatist, and so as an admirer of Charles Peirce, is how lame this book is on the subject of of abduction, a form of inference that may lie beneath both induction and deduction. Molyneux acknowledges there is such a thing as "abduction," but he has no idea what it means. Further, he's too lazy to look it up. So he punts.

 I'll finish this thought in Part II.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
7 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
13 comments
Read more