# Have there been any autistic savants of philosophy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579 "2007-02-17T01:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/61 "2011-01-03T03:28:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You seem to believe that “no one can prove or disprove it” makes a statement subjective. Yep. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You disagree with, but make clear that you understand, my position: that, as per the dictionary definition, a statement counts so long as it describes material things in objective reality I agree with the dictionary definition. But an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion does not describe material things or objective reality. It describes a subjective opinion about material things or objective reality. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The definitions I’ve cited make no mention of provability; what definition are you using to establish that, absent provability, an otherwise objective statement becomes subjective? I’m using the dictionary definition. See above. “The cheese tastes good” is an unprovable assertion about reality (material reality, depending on your stance on materialism and definition of “tastes”), the exact same way my example about the moon is. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/62 "2011-01-03T03:30:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t know how I could be any clearer, but I want you to spell your examples out in big fine grammatical sentences; use plain English rather than symbols, with nouns and verbs and possibly some adjectives plus maybe a bunch of adverbs. What’s your game, **Waldo**? Are you punking me? Are you trying to waste my time? How on earth is this going clarify anything? ETA: for others following, I already provided [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13310659&postcount=58). ---
**Author:** ![Palooka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/palooka/32/2902_2.png) [@Palooka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Palooka)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/63 "2011-01-03T03:38:07Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > If you construct an axiomatic system of logic, there exist true, false, and undecidable theorems, regardless of whether proofs exist. This is a basic fact in mathematics/logic theory. I thought it was boolean. What makes something undecidable? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/64 "2011-01-03T03:41:39Z")
> [@Palooka](#): > > I thought it was boolean. What makes something undecidable? [Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems). Probably the most famous undecidable statement in mathematics is the [axiom of choice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice). Note it is called an axiom precisely because it is an undecidable theorem. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/65 "2011-01-03T03:43:39Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I agree with the dictionary definition. But an unprovable, unfalsifiable assertion does not describe material things or objective reality. It describes a subjective opinion about material things or objective reality. I just don’t see how being unprovable and unfalsifiable makes a claim about material things “subjective”. It doesn’t make them “true” or “false”, either. > [@](#): > > I’m using the dictionary definition. See above. “The cheese tastes good” is an unprovable assertion about reality (material reality, depending on your stance on materialism and definition of “tastes”), the exact same way my example about the moon is. How do you figure? In one, you’re making a claim about what goes on in your mind when you taste the cheese; call it your subjective opinion. In the other, you’re making a claim about what the moon is like when nobody – including you – is perceiving it; that’s, like, the \*\*\*opposite \*\*\*of subjective; what goes on in your mind, rather than in the external world, is excluded from it and thus doesn’t enter into it. > [@](#): > > What’s your game, Waldo? Are you punking me? Are you trying to waste my time? How on earth is this going clarify anything? I believe that, if you phrase your example in words rather than symbols, I’ll have a decidedly easier time pinpointing the possible ambiguity that everything might be hinging on. Feel free to include scorn while figuring I’m the one misunderstanding you; I merely want to see if something becomes obvious upon becoming explicit. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/66 "2011-01-03T03:56:21Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How do you figure? In one, you’re making a claim about what goes on in your mind when you taste the cheese; call it your subjective opinion. Correct. Also your mind is a part of objective reality, so you are making a statement about objective reality. However, your statement cannot be proven or disproved. That is the key differentiation. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > In the other, you’re making a claim about what the moon is like when nobody – including you – is perceiving it; that’s, like, the \*\*\*opposite \*\*\*of subjective; what goes on in your mind, rather than in the external world, is excluded from it and thus doesn’t enter into it. Given that the proposition has no empirical support (even in theory, because it cannot be proven) it must be a subjective proposition – one coming from the mind. It has no basis whatsoever in the outside world. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I believe that, if you phrase your example in words rather than symbols, I’ll have a decidedly easier time pinpointing the possible ambiguity that everything might be hinging on. Feel free to include scorn while figuring I’m the one misunderstanding you; I merely want to see if something becomes obvious upon becoming explicit. Do you genuinely not understand the example of symbolic logic I gave? It was quite explicit! Do you not understand the connection to our discussion? I would think you were putting me on (hence the scorn), but if you genuinely don’t understand, despite how obvious it seems to me, I will give one more try… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/67 "2011-01-03T04:05:15Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Correct. Also your mind is a part of objective reality, so you are making a statement about objective reality. Well, yes, if you for some reason want to take it down that far, then we could effectively define everything as objective rather than subjective – which, actually, would still include your statement about the moon, so I’m not sure why you’d want to swap in such an odd definition. > [@](#): > > However, your statement cannot be proven or disproved. That is the key differentiation. How is it key? It appears in none of the definitions I’m aware of. > [@](#): > > Given that the proposition has no empirical support (even in theory, because it cannot be proven) it must be a subjective proposition That’s not how it works. A proposition doesn’t become subjective simply by dint of lacking empirical support, as sure as it doesn’t become false by dint of lacking empirical support – unless you can supply a definition of “subjective” which pegs it to, y’know, _lacking empirical support._ There are plenty of interesting things you can say about a statement that lacks empirical support, but I don’t see that “subjective” automatically leaps into that gap. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/68 "2011-01-03T04:14:19Z")
We’ve gone over this. I’m using the dictionary definition. Your own provided definition. You are also blatantly distorting my statements. I did not say or imply that “a proposition becomes subjective simply by dint of lacking empirical support”. Here I will quote myself: > [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Given that the proposition has no empirical support ( **even in theory, because it cannot be proven** ) it must be a subjective proposition – one coming from the mind. It has no basis whatsoever in the outside world. If a proposition is undecidable and cannot _ **even in theory** _ have empirical support, I am saying it is subjective. It has no basis in material reality. It is entirely invented and supported subjectively within one’s mind. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/69 "2011-01-03T04:23:48Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > If a proposition is undecidable and cannot _ **even in theory** _ have empirical support, I am saying it is subjective. The definition of “objective” includes neither a requirement of empirical support nor the possibility of even-in-theory empirical support; you can of course brand such a claim as “unverifiable” or “unfalsifiable”, but I don’t see how “subjective” enters into it _ **regardless** _ of whether it has empirical support, or lacks empirical support, or can’t even theoretically have empirical support – because the entire question of empirical support is absent from the definition. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/70 "2011-01-03T04:28:34Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > I am not sure how I could possibly be any clearer without sacrificing generality, but here is a specific example: > > 1. P (Premise) > 2. P =\> Q (premise) > 3. Q (modus ponens) > > Now someone else comes along and proffers: > > 1. R (Premise) > 2. R =\> ~(P =\> Q) (premise) > 3. ~Q (modus ponens) (\<----- FALSE. INCORRECT. WRONG! ) Apparently the one with whom I am debating does not speak the above language. Here is an example of the above translated into plain English: 1. A triangle is a polygon with 4 edges. 2. A three-sided polygon has 4 vertexes. 3. Therefore a square has 4 vertexes. Now someone comes along and proffers: 1. A three-sided polygon has 3 vertexes 2. Therefore the statement that “a three-sided polygon has 4 vertexes” is false 3. Therefore the statement that “a square has 4 vertexes” is false. (\<---- WRONG! ) This is a clear illustration of why the following statement of yours is false: > [@The Other Waldo Pepper](#): > > My argument is that disproving a chain of reasoning does disprove the conclusion – if the chain of reasoning has the requisite bearing on the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/71 "2011-01-03T04:34:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > The definition of “objective” includes neither a requirement of empirical support nor the possibility of even-in-theory empirical support; you can of course brand such a claim as “unverifiable” or “unfalsifiable”, but I don’t see how “subjective” enters into it _ **regardless** _ of whether it has empirical support, or lacks empirical support, or can’t even theoretically have empirical support – because the entire question of empirical support is absent from the definition. Your own definition of “objective”: _describes material things in objective reality_ What is a material thing in objective reality? It is something material which can be measured to exist. For example, a faerie is not a material thing in objective reality, because it has not been measured to exist. Similarly, a moon “made of cheese, except when you look at it or try to measure its properties” has not been measured to exist. In fact, it cannot be measured to exist even in principle. Therefore neither faeries nor said moon are material things in objective reality. Therefore they are not “objective.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/72 "2011-01-03T04:34:10Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Here is an example of the above translated into plain English: > > 1. A triangle is a polygon with 4 edges. > 2. A three-sided polygon has 4 vertexes. > 3. Therefore a square has 4 vertexes. > > Now someone comes along and proffers: > > 1. A three-sided polygon has 3 vertexes > 2. Therefore the statement that “a three-sided polygon has 4 vertexes” is false > 3. Therefore the statement that “a square has 4 vertexes” is false. (\<---- WRONG! ) > > This is a clear illustration of why the following statement of yours is false: > > > [@](#): > > > > My argument is that disproving a chain of reasoning does disprove the conclusion – if the chain of reasoning has the requisite bearing on the conclusion. No, that’s a clear illustration that the chain of reasoning did not have the requisite bearing on the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/73 "2011-01-03T04:35:12Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > Your own definition of “objective”: > > _describes material things in objective reality_ > > What is a material thing in objective reality? It is something material which can be measured to exist. Cite? I don’t see “measurability” mentioned in that definition; where are you importing it from? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/74 "2011-01-03T04:45:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Cite? > > I don’t see “measurability” mentioned in that definition; where are you importing it from? You do realize that definitions use words which themselves carry meaning, right? Material: _anything made of matter_ Matter: as a physicist I can weigh in here with some authority: matter is that which can be measured to have properties called mass and volume ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/75 "2011-01-03T04:56:43Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > No, that’s a clear illustration that the chain of reasoning did not have the requisite bearing on the conclusion. How do you define “requisite bearing”? I’m guessing you are defining it tautologically. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/76 "2011-01-03T05:37:27Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > You do realize that definitions use words which themselves carry meaning, right? > > Material: _anything made of matter_ > > Matter: as a physicist I can weigh in here with some authority: matter is that which can be measured to have properties called mass and volume I don’t see any reference to “measured” in the dictionary definitions: > [@](#): > > 1. > > the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made. > 2. > physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like. > 3. > something that occupies space. > 4. > a particular kind of substance: coloring matter. > 5. > a situation, state, affair, or business: a trivial matter. But, hey, you’re a physicist, so maybe there’s some other definition that does require measurability. (“Definition: Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.” Huh. Not that one, anyway. Well, maybe you’ll provide a cite beyond My Post Is My Cite.) > [@](#): > > How do you define “requisite bearing”? I’m guessing you are defining it tautologically. It’s interesting; I used that phrase way back in post #48, and in post #70 you even copy-and-pasted my use of it in post #52 – and you’re only _ **now** _ zeroing in on the question of what it means. How odd. Be that as it may, I’m using “requisite bearing” to mean that the conclusion does require the chain of reasoning in question. If a chain of reasoning lacks that requisite bearing, then disproving it doesn’t disprove the conclusion; if it has the requisite bearing, then disproving it disproves the conclusion. As for that being tautological – well, again, consider post #48: > [@](#): > > To link the reasoning to the proposition, you’d need to posit (in a glossed-over final step) the relevance of liking unicorns; if the reasoning _ **did** _ have the requisite bearing on the proposition, then attacking the reasoning _ **would** _ attack the proposition. As it happens, the reasoning in question lacks any such relationship to the proposition I don’t see how I could’ve made it more obvious – I mean, there’s even bolded italicizing to emphasize the sheer in-terms-of-itself-ed-ness – but, hey, if that helps you, then, by all means, run with it. ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/77 "2011-01-03T06:05:11Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I don’t see any reference to “measured” in the dictionary definitions: […] That is because it is so obvious as to be implicit and inherent in any description of a physical aspect of the universe. In order for any material in nature to be said to exist, it must be _observed_. In order for something to be observed, it must be _measured_. In fact, the two words “observe” and “measure” are synonymous. Another common definition of something “objective”, is: something that which exists independently of the mind. The only way of determining whether something exists independently of the mind is to _measure_ it. This is so basic and fundamental I’m still worried you might be putting me on. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/78 "2011-01-03T06:10:25Z")
> [@iamnotbatman](#): > > That is because it is so obvious as to be implicit and inherent in any description of a physical aspect of the universe. In order for any material in nature to be said to exist, it must be _observed_. In order for something to be observed, it must be _measured_. In fact, the two words “observe” and “measure” are synonymous. Which explains why I don’t see either “observe” or “measure” in the definition. > [@](#): > > Another common definition of something “objective”, is: something that which exists independently of the mind. The only way of determining whether something exists independently of the mind is to _measure_ it. It exists independently of the mind whether you _measure_ it or not. > [@](#): > > This is so basic and fundamental I’m still worried you might be putting me on. Are you suggesting that nothing existed until someone came along to measure it? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/79 "2011-01-03T06:14:56Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It’s interesting; I used that phrase way back in post #48, and in post #70 you even copy-and-pasted my use of it in post #52 – and you’re only _ **now** _ zeroing in on the question of what it means. How odd. > > … > > I don’t see how I could’ve made it more obvious – I mean, there’s even bolded italicizing to emphasize the sheer in-terms-of-itself-ed-ness – but, hey, if that helps you, then, by all means, run with it. I’m asking you to be more precise. Oh, you know, kinda like you did [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13310614&postcount=54), and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13310614&postcount=60). Remember that? Huh? Do ya? ---
**Author:** ![iamnotbatman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/858c86/32.png) [@iamnotbatman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamnotbatman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2011, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579/80 "2011-01-03T06:21:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It exists independently of the mind whether you _measure_ it or not. How do you know? Have you measured it while you weren’t measuring it? Sounds like a subjective opinion to me. (in fact this is discussed in physics and is considered subjective, as an opinion on the matter is not falsifiable) > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Are you suggesting that nothing existed until someone came along to measure it? This is a not uncommon viewpoint in physics. But no, I’m not going there. I’m suggesting that the pink elephant sitting beside me is subjective. \ Yep, it’s subjective. It’s not part of physical reality. It exists inside my mind. Just because you make some assertion about physical reality does not make it automatically objective. It is subjective until observed to exist as a “material thing in objective reality”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-there-been-any-autistic-savants-of-philosophy/392579.md?page=5)