Rate this book

The Logical Leap: Induction In Physics (2010)

by David Harriman(Favorite Author)

4.19 of 5 Votes: 3

ISBN

0451230051 (ISBN13: 9780451230058)

languge

English

genre

Nonfiction

publisher

NAL Trade

review 1: Leonard Peikoff wrote a book and David Harriman is taking credit for it. At the beginning Leonard is mentioned as the "silent author" but anyone who has read Peikoff will pick up on the style of his writing. I like this book, just as I like most Objectivist literature. But it just doesn't seem quite complete.First, this book has little to do with physics, math, or science. When it says, "Induction in physics", what it really means is induction through anecdotes about physics. I don't mean this negatively, but if you are thinking there is some "discovery" or mathematical proof that is going to be laid out in this book then you are mistaken.Second, this book is written polemically. If the world actually fit into the nice categories Peikoff gives us then his method of inducti... moreon will seem so profound and extraordinary. But the reality is that there is a wide margin between rationalist and empiricist and for the most part I doubt others would agree this his definitions of these terms apply. In one case Kant is both the cause of the empiricists and a rationalist herald, as well. Again, this is not bad, but it does seem unnecessary.Third, as a work of epistemology it is fairly removed from the common language of epistemology. There is no mention of JTB (justified true belief). No mention of the difference between knowledge and belief. No mention of self-knowledge, will, faith, courage, or meaning. These subjects all have epistemic merit and are typically added by philosophers into their system of epistemology, but none of this is discussed in this book. This is not bad, but is does seem incomplete.Now about the work itself... it is good, really good, possibly great, but it doesn't seem too different than Ayn Rand's original work on this called, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology". This book simply has more anecdotes and a better literary structure.Peikoff does an amazing job on explaining what induction is, and how it works, and how we can rely on it. It really is top notch philosophy, but it seems very one sided to say the least. Peikoff defines induction as an integration of observable data. It all seems so scientific, in fact the whole book is committed to this thesis. I do not doubt his conclusion on this matter. I am comforted and inspired by his insights as to how concept formation and the scientific method are intrinsically identical. But not everything is "observable data". My inner thoughts, my experience of self, and my will for significance are all epistemic factors that are not observed in any sensational manner. And yet, I say that I possess knowledge according to these things. Perhaps, "observable data" can be used to include certain internal states which are not observed in any way at all, but have epistemic value according to the objective nature of man? But this is never really discussed in the book.I suspect the reason for this is because the book is committed to the thesis that thinking is quantitative in essence and the aforementioned articles exhibit a qualitative identification through knowledge. Of course, Peikoff writes on how we can know qualities through our thinking which is quantitative, and this is well and good, but it seems that there could be a flip side to knowledge which can be called qualitative thinking. Of course, it could not be called "inductive" by nature, and thus would also not be propositional. There does seem hope for this in other areas of epistemological research. Warrant, for one, has potential to provide justification for non-propositional forms of knowledge. Hofstadter has also contributed a fascinating synthesis of epistemology and metaphysics which makes utilizes a mathematical self-referential formula discovered by Godel to illustrate how a self-referring system can develop higher level thinking. Using this method it could be argued that the quantitative thinking is just one level one which the qualitative reinterpretation takes place on another level. Thus, both systems could work together. But this book doesn't consider this option. Objectivists in general seem dogmatic to their own view of reason, which isn't bad, because its not a bad view of reason, but it just seems limiting.
review 2: This book is utterly fantastic. It is covers the many, partially conflicting, bases of what I've been looking for in the history of physics for some time. I know some, but not a lot, about physics. Books that go deeply enough into the history to be interesting to me often become incomprehensible assuming a much more substantial background than I have. Books that don't have that latter problem mostly treat the subject fairly trivially. This one was perfect.The Logical Leap also goes much further than anything I've read, and I suspect further than anything out there, in analyzing induction epistemologically. With a historical approach covering major accomplishments of the last few centuries, there is fertile ground for demonstrating what works methodologically, what doesn't, and delving into the whys and hows. I found the historical treatments bent toward this focus on epistemology. It wouldn't surprise me to find that history at times takes a backseat to the effort of describing what a person did to validate a process, describing it as a historical process even when this deviates from the actual historical process that occurred.Finally, the book does a good job at differentiating the last century to century and a half from what came before and relating the differences to the basic philosophic approaches to science broadly. I've pulled that information together from a lot of sources over time, but this is not only the best single source that I've found, but took me much further.Overall, just a complete delight. less

Download links for: The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

Advertising