Announcements

1
Announcements

• Midterm on Tuesday review questions are posted
• For Tuesday if you have time after studying read
  Taylors, A Defense of Libertarian Freedom of
  the Will

2
What Pragmatism Means

• The scope of pragmatism first a method and
  second, a genetic theory of what is meant by
  truth (125)
• We will follow James here

3
The Pragmatic Method

• A pragmatic theory and criterion of meaning
• James entertaining story
• The moral The pragmatic method in such cases
  is to try and interpret each notion by tracing
  its practical consequences. What difference
  would it practically make to any one if this
  notion rather than that notion were true? (120)

4
The Pragmatic Method

• James gives two initial examples
• (i) Is the world fated or free?
• (ii) Is the world material or spiritual?
• Let us apply the pragmatic method and ask
• (I) What PRACTICAL difference would the outcome
  of these debates have?
• (II) How does the debate shift with the asking
  of (I)? For example, if the answer to (I) is
  none?

5
The pragmatic method

• Another example
• Ostwald a modernize formulation two
  scientific theories could be logically
  incompatible and yet empirically equivalent. If
  there is no testable difference between them, how
  do we resolve such a rivalry?
• Modern Equivalent of this example Quines
  under-determination of data thesis this does
  happen

6
The pragmatic method

• James no practical difference between the two
  theories therefore, we can adopt either. We can
  even be free to adopt pragmatic criterion on
  which theory theory to accept i.e., simplicity,
  elegance, naturalness, which theory is more
  fruitful for future research, etc. For,

7
The Pragmatic Method

• The whole function of philosophy ought to be to
  find out what definite difference it will make to
  you and me, at definite instants of our life, if
  this world-formula or that world-formula be the
  true one
• If there is no empirical difference in terms of
  experimental results then we can on pragmatic
  grounds adopt other criteria
• The pragmatic method thus gives us a criterion of
  meaning

8
The Pragmatic Method

• To obtain perfect clearness in our thoughts of
  an object, then, we need only consider what
  conceivable effects of a practical kind the
  object may involve what sensations we are to
  expect from it, and what reactions we must
  prepare. Thisis then the whole of our
  conception of the object, so far as that
  conception has positive significance at all(121)

9
The Pragmatic method

• The criterion of meaning an idea (or
  proposition) has meaning if and only if it has
  practical consequences.
• A propositions meaning just are those practical
  consequences.
• Problem(?) vagueness. Can any idea be
  discounted? With any idea with enough
  imagination could we derive a practical
  consequence?

10
The pragmatic method

• This view becomes plausible with respect to the
  sciences if we accept that theories thus become
  instruments, not answers to enigmas (122)
• We accept those theories that proves to be the
  most useful for us in organizing experience and
  getting what we want i.e., medical cures.
• We do not accept a theory or even care about it
  because it gives us an accurate picture of
  reality unless such a picture can be said to
  have practical consequences the vagueness
  problem again

11
The pragmatic method

• Pragmatism has no dogmas, and no doctrines save
  its method (122)
• Any problems with this?
• Thus, all theories are assessed and even defined
  in terms of its cash-value, what difference in
  terms of practical consequences it makes to
  believe in them.
• Another Example

12
The pragmatic method

• Belief in the Absolute ( a Hegelian view of the
  19th century, not what we would normally call God
  a belief that then appealed to the most
  respectable class of minds)
• What does this belief mean pragmatically
• They mean that since, in the Absolute finite
  evil is overruled already, we may, therefore,
  whenever we wish, treat the temporal as if it
  were potentially the eternal, be sure that we can
  trust

13
The pragmatic method

• its outcome, and, without sin, dismiss our fear
  and drop the worry of our finite responsibility.
  In short, they mean that we have a right ever and
  anon to take a moral holidayfeeling that its
  the worlds issues are in better hands than
  ours and are none of our business (126)
• This is the cash-value of this belief its going
  to be alright, the world is ultimately rational.
  That is the potential difference in the lives of
  those who believe it.

14
The pragmatic method

• Problem Doesnt the metaphysician mean more
  than this? Does framing a propositions meaning
  strictly in terms of its practical consequences
  result in a reduction of its meaning? Is this
  acceptable
• Example Does God role dice? What if this
  debate between Einstein and QM was framed
  exclusively in terms of a fundamental trust or
  lack thereof, in reality I have read such
  accounts. Would something be missing in this
  construal?

15
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• Here I am going to combine what James says in
  What Pragmatism Means and The Pragmatic Notion
  of Truth in an overall summary.
• Four Basic Theses
• (1) Truth as what I will call the guarantor
  of efficiency in the management of our beliefs
  new truth is always a go-between, a
  smoother-over of transitionsit makes itself
  true, gets itself classed as true, by the way it
  works..(124)

16
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• (2) Truths connection with utility
• (a) Truth and verification
• (b) Truth is what is useful for us. It is only
  the expedient in the way of thinking, just as
  the right is only the expedient in the way of
  our behaving(132)
• (3) Truths are mutable. They change we have
  to live today by what truth we can get today and
  be ready tomorrow to call it falsehood (133)

17
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth

• (4) Truth is man-made truth is made, just as
  health, wealth and strength are made, in the
  course of experience (132)
• The intellectualist/rationalist rebuttal as we
  shall see James has confused the nature of
  truth with the process of obtaining it. His
  genetic account is actually a genetic fallacy.
• James rebuttal to bring truth down to earth
  to make it concrete beyond abstractions - for
  us mortals within human experience.

18
Truth as Efficiency

• As Quine would say, when it comes to our beliefs
  we always seek, where possible, the maximum of
  minimum mutilation
• What does this mean?
• We start with a set of beliefs that we naturally
  think are true you cant believe something and
  also believe that it is false
• New experience(s) challenges or contradicts such
  beliefs.

19
Truth as Efficiency

• The key point in the face of such a challenge
  or contradiction we seek the method or set of
  ideas that will allow us to preserve as much as
  is possible of our previous set of beliefs we
  desire minimum mutilation of our belief set
• We wish to change as little as is possible. We
  wish to keep as much of our web of belief
  intact as is possible.
• Thus, those ideas which accomplish such a
  function makes themselves true. They win out as
  the explanation.

20
Truth as Efficiency

• New truth is always a go-between, a
  smoother-over of transitions. It marries old
  opinion to new fact so as ever to show a minimum
  of jolt, a maximum of continuity. We hold a
  theory true just in proportion to its success in
  solving this problem of maxima and minima (124)
• Examples abound to give a silly one, if I spent
  too much time with my friend Jack Daniels and
  believe I saw a ghost, I would naturally blame
  my friend rather than greater alter my belief set.

21
Truth as Efficiency

• More serious example scientific theories, they
  tend to be conservative in such matters
• Even in cases of upheaval of beliefs i.e., the
  introduction of quantum mechanics we are still
  conservative about how much of our belief set
  needs to be changed i.e., there are even
  philosophers and scientists who argue that even
  here in this domain of study, quantum
  indeterminacies cancel out at the macro
  level, the level where Newtonian mechanics works
  just fine and is just as legitimate.

22
(II) Truth and Utility

• Traditional definition of truth agreement with
  reality
• The pragmatist agrees
• But how are we to understand this agreement with
  reality?
• Traditional answer a copy, an accurate picture
• Pragmatist this agreement is to be identified
  with verifiability and usefulness
• The key metaphor

23
Truth and Verification

• Critique of the copy metaphor of truth
• (1) Our true ideas of sensible things do indeed
  copy them. Shut your ideas and think of yonder
  clock on the wall.when you speak of the
  time-keeping function of the clock, or of its
  springs elasticity it is hard to see exactly
  what your ideas can copy(123)
• What static picture, copy do we have of a
  function or elasticity
• An illustration know-how verses know-that

24
Truth and Verification

• (2) From the pragmatist criterion of meaning
  what concrete difference will its being true
  make in any ones actual life? What experiences
  will be different from those which would obtain
  it the belief were false?129
• Thus, true ideas are those that we can
  assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify.
  False ideas are those that we cannot.(129)

25
Truth and Verification

• A lacuna in James
• Sometimes he will define the truth of an idea in
  terms of actual verification The truth of an
  idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it.
  Truth happens in an idea. It becomes true, is
  made true by events. Its verity is in fact an
  event, a process the process namely of its
  verifying itself, its veri-fication. (129)
• What does James mean by a stagnant property?
• Are there any objections here?

26
Truth and Verification

• James does talk about how statements concerning
  the past can be verified (a) verbally and (b)
  effects on our present situation.
• But does that help us with our example it
  rained on this spot 10,000 years ago
• A way out?

27
Truth and verification

• Other times and this should be considered his
  main view James defines the truth of ideas not
  in terms of actual verification but rather
  verifiability
• Verifiabilityis as good as verification(130)
• Indirectly or only potentially verifying
  processes may thus be true as well as full
  verification processes(130)
• Can you see how this notion of verifiability
  could answer the previous objections? But ?

28
Truth and Verification

• The rationalists objection
• This is a confusion between the nature of truth
  and the process of obtaining truth
• The process of obtaining truth, to be sure,
  involves our investigative practices and
  verification but this shouldnt be confused with
  the nature of truth itself which is an unchanging
  fact or correspondence with reality. The quote
  p.132

29
James Response

• To turn the tables on the rationalist. They are
  the ones putting the cart before the horse
• Two stage process of rebuttal
• (1) To diagnose what truth pre-existing our
  investigations means practically
• (2) Argument by analogy
• (1) We mean verifiability. When we state that
  truth pre-exists our investigations, this simply
  means that we could verify all those ideas the
  majority of them that we presently dont.

30
James Response

• The moment or experience of truth, how truth
  arises, is still in our verification process and
  its meaning should be tied to that process. How
  is it that we ever came to the idea or experience
  of truth? Verification.
• (2) The analogies with health and wealth. Truth
  is also seen as such a habit and thus we are apt
  to think of it as static separable from, and
  pre-existing processes.

31
Truth and verification

• What does it mean to verify?
• Any idea that helps us to deal, whether
  practically or intellectually, with either the
  reality or its belongings.that fits, in fact,
  and adapts our life to the realitys whose
  setting, will agree sufficiently to meet the
  requirement. It will hold true of that reality
  (131)
• But what about those ideas that are not presently
  useful? P. 129. Can we see a problem here?
• This leads us to usefulness

32
Truth and Usefulness

• an idea is true so long as to believe it is
  profitable to our lives (127)
• Would it be correct to say of James that whatever
  belief is useful for us, what works for us, is
  thereby true?
• So if I believe in Santa Claus and this works
  for me then is it true?
• The unsympathetic reading Thats what James
  says and it is absurd!

33
Truth and Usefulness

• A more sympathetic reading. In our reading we
  can detect two conditions in what I will call the
  pragmatic test for when an idea is useful. Lets
  submit the Santa Claus belief to this test.
• (1)What does it mean for an idea to be useful?
  You can say either that it is useful because it
  is true or that it is true because it is
  useful. True is the name for whatever idea
  starts the verification-process, useful is the
  name for its completed function in experience
  (129)

34
Truth and Usefulness

• general notion of truth as something essentially
  bound up with the way in which one moment in our
  experience may lead us towards other moments
  which it will be worth while to have been led
  toour experience meanwhile is all shot through
  with regularities. One bit of it can warn us to
  get ready for another bit(129-30)
• In the above passages we have the implication
  that a useful belief has predictive value it
  guides us in experience and enables us to predict
  the course of experience.

35
Truth and Usefulness

• The Santa Claus belief what predictive value
  does it have? If its claims are to be useful and
  true, we should be able to predict a course of
  experience especially on Christmas eve? Can we?
  Therefore, it fails here.
• (2) if there be any idea which, if believed
  in, would help us to lead that life, then it
  would be really better for us to believe in that
  idea, unless, indeed, belief in it incidentally
  clashed with other greater vital benefits(127)

36
Truth and Usefulness

• The belief in Santa Claus is an empirical claim
  and as such susceptible to empirical observations
  and confirmation. Does such a belief clash with
  certain vital beliefs concerning what is meant by
  an empirical claim? If we were to accept the
  Santa Claus belief as an empirical hypothesis
  would this do immense damage to what we mean by
  an object, an empirical hypothesis?
  Therefore, the belief fails.
• However,

37
Truth and Usefulness

• If theological ideas prove to have a value for
  concrete life, they will be true, for
  pragmatism, in the sense of being good for so
  much.(126)
• Has James become lax here?
• If belief in God is useful does it mean that God
  exists?

38
(III)Truth Changes

• What could this possibly mean?
• Snow is white is true if and only if snow is
  white. This seems true independently of any
  inquiry, verification or belief
• If true it is always true
• What could James mean?

39
Truth Changes

• Ptolemaic astronomy, Euclidean space,
  Aristotelian logic, Scholastic metaphysics, were
  expedient for centuries, but human experience has
  boiled over those limits, and we now call these
  things relatively true, or true within those
  borders of experience. Absolutely they are
  false (133)
• An interesting quote The facts themselves
  meanwhile are not true. They simply are.(133)

40
Truth Changes

• James is coming to grips with historicism here
  how do we preserve a notion of truth given that
  we believe that our best evolving scientific
  theories and beliefs are constantly changing?
• If we say that Truth is all or nothing or what
  will be reached at the end of inquiry then we
  have lost truth here and now. But is that
  plausible?
• If truth is the whole, the complete description
  of reality, then none of us believe any truths.

41
Truth Changes

• James becomes plausible here if we are willing to
  admit the notion of partial truth - with
  science continually progressing do we have any
  other notion? As partial, truth changes but yet
  remains relatively true.
• But, in saying this, am I still assuming too much
  of the traditional conception of truth?
• Should we go all the way with James and limit
  ourselves to the verification of our present
  practices as true with any notion of whole
  truth as a philosophers fiction? James does
  speak of absolutely however, he also puts this
  in scare quotes.

42
Truth Changes

• How relatively true? true within those
  borders of experience. Absolutely they are
  false for we know that those limits were casual,
  and might have been transcended by past theorists
  just as they are by present thinkers (133

43
Truth Changes

• How to think of this?
• My interpretation think of chemical theory.
  Water H2O. There is no guarantee that we have
  a completed chemical theory and that a thousand
  years from now this is how people are going to
  refer to and understand water scientifically if
  anything it is pretty certain that they are not
  going to understand water as such.
• However, there are reasons, facts, for why given
  our chemical theory water is not CO2. .

44
Truth Changes

• And such reasons will always remain true and
  legitimate, not subject to our whim or fancy, as
  chemical theory advances. Such reasons then,
  with such advancement, become partial truths
  true but not static.
• Truth is not an all or nothing affair

45
Absolute Truth

• The possibility of absolute truth The
  absolutely true, meaning what no further
  experience will ever alter, is that ideal
  vanishing point towards which we imagine that all
  our temporary truths will some day converge
  (132)
• How is such a regulative notion (133) useful?
• But is it only a regulative notion? If so, how
  will we have to modify our notion of truth? The
  intersection between truth and metaphysics

46
(IV) Truth as man-made

• Follows from the ideas of verification
• If truth is connected with verification and we
  are the ones doing the verifying then in this
  sense we make truth
• Truth doesnt float around out there in Platos
  heaven
• It is a human concern requiring human questioning.

47
Truth as man-made

• Truth is the answers to our questions however
  BOTH questions and answers are needed
• Truth is the outcome of both our mistake was to
  believe that there are answers out there
  prepackaged and waiting for our questions to
  inevitably be asked.
• There are no such answers waiting as there is
  no guarantee/necessity on what questions we are
  going to ask

48
Truth as man-made

• The argument (1) Truth the outcome of the
  questioning-answering process where we ask the
  questions and reality furnishes us with the
  answers
• (2) Questions are up to us they involve our
  creativity, imagination and thought.
• (3) A question by its very nature sets
  parameters for what will count as an answer. It
  is the slice of reality that we are thereby
  carving.

49
Truth as man-made

• (4) Since truth is the relation of
  question/answer (1) and since such questions
  require us (2) and they predetermine what
  reality we are going to access (3) therefore
• (5) Truth is man-made.

50
Truth as man-made

• Does this mean that we can make beliefs true?
• Only if you believe the course of experience is
  in our control, that we can dictate what the
  outcome of the verification process will be that
  is, only if you believe as Homer Simpson once
  said Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of
  thermodynamics

51
A Final Discussion Question

• The quote page 133
• What do you think?
• Does James have an overly optimistic view of
  reality? What if truth was destructive for us?
  Should we shun truth preferring an illusion?
• For example, think of that scene in the Matrix
  where one of the villains decides a pleasant life
  of illusion is to be preferred over the harsh
  reality of real life? Is he wrong? Why?