This published, academic statement, "[Science] will be intersensible because we need no longer regard taste, sound and colour as incommensurable data; they can now all be read as physical changes, differing only in measurable ways," seems consistent with Rand's "measurement-omission." Is it, or not, and in what way?
To make the question a little clearer, the essence appears to be the following: Is the quoted statement consistent with Ayn Rand's "measurement-omission"? If so, in what way?
What does "consistent with" mean here? The apparent intent is that "measurement-omission" is a principle of some kind, and the question is asking if the quoted statement complies with that principle.
But what is the context of Ayn Rand's principle of measurement-omission? The context is concept-formation. Ayn Rand discusses measurement-omission in the context of forming concepts.
So, does the quoted statement pertain to forming new concepts? If so, what kind of concepts? I do not know (and the question doesn't explain) the context from which the quoted statment was taken, but I can surmise that the statement apparently pertains to forming concepts of the physiological-neurological processes and mechanisms by which man and other animals experience sensations. To this extent, it certainly seems to be a perfectly valid scientific process, perfectly consistent with the principle of measurement-omission in concept-formation.
One possible caveat, however. The quoted statement also mentions that "we need no longer regard taste, sound and colour as incommensurable data...." Objectivism does not regard the different sensory forms as incommensurable, either. For one thing, they are all classifiable as sensations. That would not be possible if they were incommensurable. I do not know what theory of "incommensurable data" the quoted statement is referring to. I also have no remotely foggy idea what is meant by "intersensible" in the formulation that science "will be intersensible."
I wonder if perhaps the actual intent of the question is to ask if there is a glimmer of valid epistemology lurking within an otherwise nearly unintelligible string of gibberish.
For those looking for a general introduction to the topics of measurement, measurement-omission, concepts, and concept-formation, refer to The Ayn Rand Lexicon entries on "Measurement," "Concepts," and "Concept-Formation."
answered Nov 10 '10 at 16:19
Ideas for Life ♦
Your original statement appears to come from Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" vol. 2 page 214 - in context of discussing linguistic analysis for validation of concepts such as 'general will' or 'id'. While 'sweet, bitter, sour', 'loud, soft, discordent', 'red, blue, green' may be specifics within the different data of sense - distinguishing 'red' objects from that which is 'loud' or 'sour' does not resonate as being commenserable between and amoung themselves.
Carnap mentions that taste, sound and color (to which I might add shape, and divide sound into volume and pitch or tone) have measurable attributes. Abstracting these under 'physical changes' is dropping attributes within the CCD and not so much a process of measurement omission as we see within first-level concepts per se.