[Bill,
June 25, 2009]
Abstractions and categories
Abstraction consists of taking one thing out of a complex whole and seeing it as distinct. Categorization consists of grouping things in sets, and then talking about the sets.
Categorization, thanks for Godel, naturally points to something higher than itself. Intellectuals who are "stuck" in atheism simply don't realize they've attempted to create a closed categorical system. It's an intellectual impossibility. You need, at a certain point, to point to something outside the system of sets sooner or later.
Abstraction is a little different. It's problem is one of emphasis. Once you've removed a single part of the whole, you change the emphasis, and in doing so, may do violence to the whole. Or at least create selection bias — you start to see the part because you're looking for it. While abstraction can be a normal process of analysis, excessive abstraction can lead to serious thought distortions.
Example: Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. A Republican. If we note he's a Republican and use his recent adultery as a tool to bash Republicans, we are guilty of both abstraction and category errors. Abstraction because there's no philosophical connection between the GOP political platform and adultery — neither party officially supports adultery. To abstract "Republican" or "Democrat" is not helpful to discuss the situation.
Then, if we condemn Republicanism for Sanford's behavior, we end up with a category error. Sanford is a Republican, but it is not his Republicanism that caused his adultery.
Now, one could say that Republicans are hypocrites, and hypocrisy is the hallmark of Republicanism. This would be a similar category error — hypocrisy, like adultery, is widely distributed.
So what am I getting at? Remember abstractions and categories are mere tools for thinking about things. Categories have fuzzy edges (even Darwin didn't know what to do with the platypus.) Abstractions by nature distort a whole. Try to account for both and you'll avoid lots of errors and reduce the risk of crankdom.
Categorization, thanks for Godel, naturally points to something higher than itself. Intellectuals who are "stuck" in atheism simply don't realize they've attempted to create a closed categorical system. It's an intellectual impossibility. You need, at a certain point, to point to something outside the system of sets sooner or later.
Abstraction is a little different. It's problem is one of emphasis. Once you've removed a single part of the whole, you change the emphasis, and in doing so, may do violence to the whole. Or at least create selection bias — you start to see the part because you're looking for it. While abstraction can be a normal process of analysis, excessive abstraction can lead to serious thought distortions.
Example: Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. A Republican. If we note he's a Republican and use his recent adultery as a tool to bash Republicans, we are guilty of both abstraction and category errors. Abstraction because there's no philosophical connection between the GOP political platform and adultery — neither party officially supports adultery. To abstract "Republican" or "Democrat" is not helpful to discuss the situation.
Then, if we condemn Republicanism for Sanford's behavior, we end up with a category error. Sanford is a Republican, but it is not his Republicanism that caused his adultery.
Now, one could say that Republicans are hypocrites, and hypocrisy is the hallmark of Republicanism. This would be a similar category error — hypocrisy, like adultery, is widely distributed.
So what am I getting at? Remember abstractions and categories are mere tools for thinking about things. Categories have fuzzy edges (even Darwin didn't know what to do with the platypus.) Abstractions by nature distort a whole. Try to account for both and you'll avoid lots of errors and reduce the risk of crankdom.