THIS BLOG HAS MOVED AND HAS A NEW HOME PAGE.

May 23, 2005

Necessary and sufficient conditions

The problem of finding definitions for things that clearly specify whether an object belongs in that category or not has long been recognized to be a knotty philosophical problem. Ideally what we would need for a good definition is to have both necessary and sufficient conditions, but it is not easy to do so.

A necessary condition is one that must be met if the object is to be considered even eligible for inclusion in the category. If an object meets this condition, then it is possible that it belongs in the category, but not certain. If it does not meet the condition, then we can definitely say that it does not belong. So necessary conditions for something can only classify objects into "maybe belongs" or "definitely does not belong."

For example, let us try to define a dog. We might say that a necessary condition for some object to be considered as a possible dog is that it be a mammal. So if we know that something is a mammal, it might be a dog or it might be another kind of mammal, say a cat. But if something is not a mammal, then we know for sure it is not a dog.

A sufficient condition, on the other hand, acts differently. If an object meets the sufficient condition, then it definitely belongs. If it does not meet the sufficient condition, then it may or may not belong. So the sufficient condition can be used to classify things into "definitely belongs" or "maybe belongs."

So for the dog case, if a dog has papers certified by the American Kennel Association, then we can definitely say it is a dog. But if something does not have such papers it may still be a dog (say a mixed breed) or it may not be a dog (it may be a table).

A satisfactory demarcation criterion would have both necessary and sufficient conditions because only then can we say of any given object that it either definitely belongs or it definitely does not belong. Usually these criteria take the form of a set of individually necessary conditions that, taken together, are sufficient. i.e., Each condition by itself is not sufficient but if all are met they become sufficient.

It is not easy to find such conditions, even for such a seemingly simple category as dogs, and that it the problem. So for the dog, we might try define it by saying that it is a mammal, with four legs, barks, etc. But people who are determined to challenge the criteria could find problems (What exactly defines a mammal? What is the difference between an arm and a leg? What constitutes a bark? Etc. We can end up in an infinite regression of definitions.)

This is why philosophers like to say that we make such identifications ("this is a dog, that is a cat") based on an intuitive grasp of the idea of "similarity classes," things that share similarities that may not be rigidly definable. So even a little child can arrive at a pretty good idea of what a dog is without formulating a strict definition, by encountering several dogs and being able to distinguish what separates dog-like qualities from non-dog like qualities. It is not completely fool proof. Once in a while we may come across a strange looking animal, some exotic breed that baffles us. But most times it is clear. We almost never mistake a cat for a dog, even though they share many characteristics, such as being small four-legged mammals with tails that are domestic pets.

Anyway, back to science, a satisfactory demarcation would require that we be able to find both necessary and sufficient criteria that can be used to define science, and use those conditions to separate ideas into science and non-science. Do such criteria exist? To answer that question we need to look at the history of science and see what are the common features that are shared by those bodies of knowledge we confidently call science.

This will be discussed in the next posting.

POST SCRIPT

I feel that the American media have not given nearly enough attention to the recently leaked secret and explosive "Downing Street memo" from the British secret service that reveals that Bush intended to invade Iraq all along and lied about it to the American people. Juan Cole says that the memo clearly reveals what has been long strongly suspected.

The Bush administration, and some credulous or loyal members of the press, have long tried to blame U.S. intelligence services for exaggerating the Iraq threat and thus misleading the president into going to war. That position was always weak, and it is now revealed as laughable. President Bush was not misled by shoddy intelligence. Rather, he insisted on getting the intelligence that would support the war on which he had already decided.

Cole's article, where he lays out the sequence of events, is a must read.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/singham/mt-tb.cgi/1380 Paley's watch, Mount Rushmore, and other stories of intelligent design – 2
Excerpt: In the previous posting I described a popular IDC argument that things like watches and Mount Rushmore are obviously 'designed'...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: October 3, 2005 07:57 AM What is science?
Excerpt: (I will be traveling for a few weeks and rather than put this blog on hiatus, thought that I would...
Weblog: Mano Singham's Web Journal
Tracked: May 31, 2006 02:24 PM

Comments

Interesting post! But I want to comment on your postscript. I wonder if the reason the memo has not been getting much attention is precisely because it has long been suspected and muttered about? It would be much more shocking, and perhaps thus more attention-getting, had there not been such a slow buildup over the past two years (from "we have solid evidence of WMD" to "we can't seem to find any WMD" to "turns out the evidence of WMD was bad" to "we made the whole thing up"). (Not that this suggests a great path for the press in the future, mind...)

Posted by Erin on May 23, 2005 05:34 PM

Yes, I think you are right. In fact, this is the strategy the administration adopts. They deny, deny, deny, deny in the face of all evidence, and then when proof comes along, they say it is "old news" and that they don't know what the fuss is about.

Cynical, but effective, epecially with a weak media.

Posted by Mano Singham on May 23, 2005 05:52 PM