Irreducibles …

Estudia: Okay, Phi’, let me see if I have this non reducible idea down or not.

Philo: Okay ‘Stu, what’s an example.

Estudia: Almost anything from religion I’ve decided. Concepts like heaven, hell, ghost, angel, devils, zombies, vampires, wizards, you name it. All of these things can’t be reduced to anything observable in nature hence then can’t be reduced.

Philo: Good. Those are all invalid concepts. They really don’t have any specific definition. They don’t refer to anything in particular. A ghost is just that, a ghost and not here nor there and you supposedly can only know one when you see one, or think you see one. They can mean a lot of different things and often something different to each and every person.

Estudia: Aren’t some terms like extremism, liberal, war-hawk a little like that too? They are concepts but generally don’t have specific definitions and mean different things to different people.

Philo: Yes, definitely. Terms like that are anti-concepts and are often used as an assertion without a meaningful definition. All higher-level concept and propositions must be reducible to be valid.

Estudia: Why propositions?

Philo: All propositions are based on a chain of ideas that led to them. If you do not grasp this chain all the way back to direct observation, then the proposition would just be an arbitrary idea, without context and with no objective foundation. In such a case the proposition is detached from reality and your correct thinking. This is why we need proof for any idea.

Estudia: Why’s that?

Philo: Proof is a type of reduction with the conclusion being the higher level proposition and its only link to reality is the premises. These premises eventually lead back to objective reality. To prove something you must identify the correct hierarchy of premises. You trace back the logical order of steps leading to the conclusion. Because of the need to trace the steps back to perceptual reality, you must use logic to validate the conclusion objectively.

Estudia: So what has this logic got to do with it?

Philo: Logic requires that you recognize the context as well as the hierarchy involved in a proof. Rand said that “Logic is the art of noncontradictory identification” but she implied that you must observe the full context of knowledge which of course includes its hierarchical structure.

Estudia: Well, I can see that if I reach a logical conclusion it would have to be integrated into my knowledge and it would have to fit in without contradiction. You’re just saying that if it has been related to perceptual data in this reduction process then I’ll know where the conclusion came from.

Philo: Yes, and you wind up checking your facts in two ways. Every proposition or conclusion has to jive with your other knowledge in a non-contradictory fashion and through the chain of reduction all the intermediate steps lead to things that can be experienced directly.

Estudia: So I suppose you are suggesting that I practice reducing all the concepts I want to use and all the propositions as well.

Philo: Right, but do it slowly. If you had been educated properly things would have been presented to you in a hierarchical manner and you would have been performing the reduction without thinking as you climbed the chain of ideas that led to a concept or a proposition.

Estudia: Interesting.

Philo: Yes, but remember to perform your reductions using only the essential terms. You should try to just get an overview of the higher level idea and see the major links that connect it to perceptual reality. Don’t worry about all the minutiae; you can always fill those in later.

Estudia: Good, ‘cause it looks like I’m going to be very busy. CU next time.