sdavio Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I was thinking on the phrase "first principles", and realized that I've never really understood it. I mean, in my understanding, any principle would in some sense rely on some other knowledge as its foundation; in other words, any knowledge is in some way "complex". A sentence is itself a complex of elements and relationships between them. For instance, take A = A. Even this relies on other principles regarding the ways that symbols and language work, equivalence, etc etc. This, I think, is simply to say that no proposition is completely self-contained. It always relies on some kind of prior understanding. How do we establish what are or are not "first principles"? Is there a list of the "absolute first principles", which we deduce the rest from?
Kevin Beal Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 How is the proposition "A = A" based logically on language and symbols? I'm pretty sure that it would be a true proposition in any other syntax or without any language at all.
NotDarkYet Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I recall the Introduction To Philosophy series covering this. But I think it goes something like this... 1) You exist 2) Existence (outside ourselves) exits 3) Your senses are your tool for interacting with the world 4) Truth = those statements that are consistent with reality 5)..... etc.... 6) ....etc... Ayn Rand was big on first principles, and would (rightfully) criticize people for "philosophizing in mid-stream". Meaning, jumping into an argument without establishing a foundation.
sdavio Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 How is the proposition "A = A" based logically on language and symbols? I'm pretty sure that it would be a true proposition in any other syntax or without any language at all. It relies, for instance, on the act of recognizing two things and judging them similar enough to be categorized under the same unit. This would rely on principles like, "things can be similar or different", "things can be equivalent", etc. Perhaps not any specific language such as english, spanish, and so on, but it certainly relies on certain abstracting processes which form the basis of language. And my point is that it is not basic; it is reducible into parts. And therefore - if I'm right in saying so - then it is no more a "first principle" than any other statement. I recall the Introduction To Philosophy series covering this. But I think it goes something like this... 1) You exist So, what about "I think therefore I am"? In fact, in my opinion this principle rests on another principle, which is that every thought must correspond to an object; and this principle itself can be questioned. And I could continue doing this with that one, and any other given principle, breaking it into its component parts and questioning them. So where do we come to a first principle, which is irreducible? It seems to me impossible.
NotDarkYet Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Are you saying it's "true" that you can't define any truth? Compared to what?
Kevin Beal Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 It relies, for instance, on the act of recognizing two things and judging them similar enough to be categorized under the same unit. This would rely on principles like, "things can be similar or different", "things can be equivalent", etc. Perhaps not any specific language such as english, spanish, and so on, but it certainly relies on certain abstracting processes which form the basis of language. And my point is that it is not basic; it is reducible into parts. And therefore - if I'm right in saying so - then it is no more a "first principle" than any other statement. Premise: things can be similar or different, equivalent Conclusion: therefore, A is A "A is A" is not a conclusion based on the premises you provided. When looking at "A is A" as a sentence with a structure, you can describe it in reducible terms, but as a proposition with a truth value, it is not based on those premises. At least, I don't understand how it is, if it is. The sentence and the principle itself are two different things. 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 I was thinking on the phrase "first principles", and realized that I've never really understood it. I mean, in my understanding, any principle would in some sense rely on some other knowledge as its foundation; in other words, any knowledge is in some way "complex". A sentence is itself a complex of elements and relationships between them. For instance, take A = A. Even this relies on other principles regarding the ways that symbols and language work, equivalence, etc etc. This, I think, is simply to say that no proposition is completely self-contained. It always relies on some kind of prior understanding. How do we establish what are or are not "first principles"? Is there a list of the "absolute first principles", which we deduce the rest from? First principles are the foundational principles upon which you reason from. It's not propositions that rely on no other prior understanding.
sdavio Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 Premise: things can be similar or different, equivalent Conclusion: therefore, A is A "A is A" is not a conclusion based on the premises you provided. When looking at "A is A" as a sentence with a structure, you can describe it in reducible terms, but as a proposition with a truth value, it is not based on those premises. At least, I don't understand how it is, if it is. The sentence and the principle itself are two different things. My understanding of the whole premise / conclusion system would be, that it assumes that we both agree on the premises, then that the conclusions follow from the premises, thereby convincing the person of of the conclusions. So whatever premises something relies upon would simply depend on what the person you are debating is willing to accept. Perhaps the phrase "first principle" would mean, a premise which every possible debater would necessarily accept. However, I do not need to accept "A is A" necessarily; I can call into question how we know that it is true, what it actually describes about the world, and so on; and this would bring us into metaphysics, epistemology, etc. Of course, we might say it is true regardless of whether anyone questions it, just as you said that "A is A" is true regardless of language or grammar. But, I would posit that this should be equally so for any given proposition. Therefore, if this were the criteria, then every "true proposition" would equally be a "first principle". First principles are the foundational principles upon which you reason from. It's not propositions that rely on no other prior understanding. Wouldn't all reasoning be reasoning from first principles, then?
Kevin Beal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Wouldn't all reasoning be reasoning from first principles, then? No. "A is A" doesn't require justification because it is true by definition. Any argument against it would require it to be true. This is not the case for a proposition like "men have larger brains on average than women" or the proposition "15,485,863 is a prime number". Certain epistemic standards for proof would be used to verify the veracity of these claims. just as you said that "A is A" is true regardless of language or grammar. But, I would posit that this should be equally so for any given proposition. Okay. But I wasn't saying that "A is A" is a first principle because it does not require language to be true. You were the one who said that it was based on operators, and the semantics and syntax of language. You used that as an argument to say that "A is A" needs to be justified just like any other proposition. But I provided a counter argument which hasn't been addressed yet. As far as I know, I've proved the case logically that it is a first principle. I mean, all you have to do is provide a necessary premise that is required in order to justify it. Saying that you could (but don't) take issue with it and ask me to justify it is not the same thing as actually being a proposition that requires justification. This would make what constitutes a first principle subjective and arbitrary: it is what people think it is. That would mean that a premise that both people accept that is actually wrong is a first principle, which is the opposite of the whole point of starting from first principles: so that you form valid conclusions from things you can know are true. I think the very smart ProfessionalTeabagger's definition needs a little tweaking, and may be where you got this relativistic perception of what first principles are. It's true that Stef doesn't start out each of his arguments with "A is A", then to non-contradiction, excluded middle and so on until he concludes that taxation is theft. And so there is a reasonable misunderstanding that one could make that this is the same thing as "philosophizing mid-stream", that is, starting from premises that aren't themselves based on first principles. But there is an obvious difference between someone who makes up explanations after the fact as many people are wont to do, and a person who, when trying to come to a conclusion goes back to the premises which have been established from an analysis from first principles. A person who prays that god will heal his child may come to find that his child has become well again, and conclude that god did in fact heal his child. This is in contrast to a researcher who goes back to epistemically-based scientific principles and performs double blind tests on prayer or studies the child's medical treatment and the reasons that treatment has been shown to work, and whatever other rigorous scientific type research goes into that sort of thing. He doesn't need to go about proving the veracity of the scientific method every time he does his research, but that doesn't make it the same thing as the man who believes prayer heals. So, a better definition would be something like what Wikipedia says: In philosophy "First principles" is often somewhat interchangeable and synonymous with a priori, datum and axiom or axiomatic reasoning/method. If you have to accept the truth of a proposition in order to argue against it, that is an example of a principle which is axiomatic: a first principle. I like what Elon Musk says about first principles: I think its important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy…The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy… We are doing this because it’s like something else that was done..or it is like what other people are doing…slight iterations on a theme… “First principles” is a physics way of looking at the world…what that really means is that you boil things down to the most fundamental truths…and then reason up from there…that takes a lot more mental energy… Someone could –and people do — say battery packs are really expensive and that’s just the way they will always be because that’s the way they have been in the past… They would say it’s going to cost, historically it cost $600 KW/hour. It’s not going to be much better that in the future… So first principles..we say what are the material constituents of the batteries. What is the spot market value of the material constituents? It has carbon, nickel, aluminum, and some polymers for separation, and a steel can..break that down on a material basis, if we bought that on a London Metal Exchange, what would each of these things cost. oh geez…It’s $80 KW/hour. Clearly, you need to think of clever ways to take those materials and combine them into the shape of a battery cell, and you can have batteries that are much cheaper than anyone realizes. 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Wouldn't all reasoning be reasoning from first principles, then? No because most people are reasoning from assumptions they're not even aware of. Ask the average person what their foundational principles are and they'll likely just give you opinions, cultural prejudice or dogma. 1
Mr. Wrong Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 If you want the super short answer just watch Inception, perhaps again. People still argue what the movie was about but it's actually pretty obvious to me. I think. The movie is about what is takes to convince somebody. That's it. The two safes in the film are where each character's first principle is stored. DiCaprio changes his wife's first principle to, "I'm dreaming," which eventually drives her mad in reality. Whatever beliefs you hold are based on a first principle; many of them the same one but others not. My first principle, were I to represent it mathematically is 1=/=0. This equation is summed up in the all powerful word 'is'. What is 'is'? It's one not equaling zero. 1
luxfelix Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 If you want the super short answer just watch Inception, perhaps again. People still argue what the movie was about but it's actually pretty obvious to me. I think. The movie is about what is takes to convince somebody. That's it. The two safes in the film are where each character's first principle is stored. DiCaprio changes his wife's first principle to, "I'm dreaming," which eventually drives her mad in reality. Whatever beliefs you hold are based on a first principle; many of them the same one but others not. My first principle, were I to represent it mathematically is 1=/=0. This equation is summed up in the all powerful word 'is'. What is 'is'? It's one not equaling zero. In addition, those who have locked away their first principles from others (and often themselves as well), are easy targets for the manipulator. With a way to check for the validity of principles, etc., inception by others is less likely.
Recommended Posts