| 1. | Re: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …" | | | I want to thank everyone for this interesting and important epistemological discussion. Everyone's claims are so inviting for comment that it is difficult to decide where to jump in.
Some immediate responses:
1. Philosophers are prone to defining words in such a way that they support their premises and hence their conclusion. So, I predict I will be doing that as I formulate my own arguments.
2. I think it might be better to describe human beings as having the potential to be rational than as rational. Not that I care whether anyone in the Canon agrees with me; but for those who do, I think the Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Kant and so on would agree with me. Being rational is an activity we engage and some may choose not to bother. Political discourse in North America does not encourage rational engagement so it is easy to understand why many opt to have faith in someone and consider themselves rational. Reasons are easy to compile; evidence abounds.
3. Which brings me to faith. I agree Professor Main that faith is a strong certainty one has in the object of faith, and truths 'attached' to the object. However, this is not inconsistent with one exercising one's reason and hence having some justification for one's certainty, for example, that some god or other exists or one's friend or husband is behaving as a friend or husband should behave. Faith can be blind or based on a lot of light. This, of course, depends on one's capacities and one's willingness to work to acquire knowledge. Reason does not exercise itself any more than my arms or legs. I have to make both move.
4. Professor Main, you also apply the coherence theory of truth well to science since the truth of various theories would be reasonably challenged if there is inconsistency. However, I don't think incoherence in scientific theory provides justification or makes reasonable doubt of the external world any more than philosophers' arguments. If one is a philosopher, I would hope that truths only based on reason will be as provisional as those based on faith. Both need to be grounded in one's experience of the world. A reason (i.e. thinker) that not touch base with the reality is as undependable as faith that is ignoring it.
5. Thank you all for helping me clarify my thoughts and a special thank you to those who have prompted them, and anyone who has read them to the end.
------------------------------
[Sandra [Tomsons] [Ph.D.]
[Co-editor]
[Canadian Journal of Practical Philosophy]
[Paqtnkek First Nation] [Mi'kma'ki]
------------------------------
|
| | Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward Flag as Inappropriate | -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-25-2020 11:02
From: Edward Main
Subject: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …"
Dear Ms. Stoneman; Thank you for your interest. However, I'm still reluctant to use the term "faith" to describe the proper attitude toward "reason." I thought about "hope" that seemed in several ways to be just a substitute for "faith" (I do recognize that consideration of the results of the exercise of reason may provide a basis for hope, but maybe not). Perhaps "conviction" might be a way to describe an attitude that focuses on reason. I recall that, following the French Revolution (during the First Republic) the artist, David, arranged massive celebrations to a Temple of Reason (kind of a late eighteenth century performance art). Even earlier, Voltaire wrote a poem extolling the wonders of reason. I'm less effusive in my approach to reason. Basically, I think it is the best way to bring together many different aspects of experience, ideally to harmonize them, but at least to understand the relation between them, even if that relation is only the particular respects by which they are incompatible or contradict each other (for example, the incompatibility of the principles of quantum mechanics with those of relativity, as well as the attempts to reconcile them). For my part, I consider the successes of "science" to present an extraordinarily coherent account of how the external or physical world functions (such coherence also providing a good basis to accept the reality of an external or physical world and how it works). I find these successes, and the procedures by which they were achieved, to be convincing, hence my choice of "conviction" as my attitude toward reason. "Conviction" is a response to the "convincing" means and results of the exercise of reason in its various applications (science being one of them). This might seem circular: the use of a rational standard (coherence) to justify reliance on that standard. Moreover, that standard has changed over time (ideally, it has been refined and clarified, a process which may continue as long it is recognized as a worthwhile project). Sometimes "conviction" may be used to describe "faith", but that primarily refers to the strong certainty a person has in the object of faith and its truths. I use "conviction" in more of a logical sense of applying reason to the relevant information. The "truths" of science are not eternal (although was the eighteenth century presumption); I recognize that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity (for example) will remain unchanged forever. The "truth" as identified by reason, will always be provisional, in contrast to "truths" of faith. I think I had better stop. I do enjoy the process of trying to clarify my thoughts on the subject. Respectfully yours, Edward Main Tulsa Oklahoma
Original Message:
Sent: 11/25/2020 9:52:00 AM
From: Betty Stoneman
Subject: RE: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …"
So, a super interesting discussion for sure.
What I've got in mind, more specifically, is this: faith in the idea of rationality.
More specifically, what I'm getting at is that the liberal tradition has a long history of conceiving of humans as by nature rational. Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, Smith, Rawls - all these guys held that humans are by nature rational, as well as by nature self-interested. But, what exactly do they mean by "rational"? I think each of them may mean something different by the term. But whatever each of them means by the term, there seems to be a long held assumption in liberal theory that rationality is a given.
Liberal progressives have seemed to inherent this "faith in rationality." Why do I say this? Well, for one, the last two elections in the US as I noted in a previous reply. But, even more. In 2004, Thomas Frank asked the question: "What's a matter with Kansas?" Why do people in red states consistently vote against their own self-interests? These people seem to agree with neoliberal capitalism, so why aren't they voting to support their own self-interests? Progressive liberals have been scratching their heads over this question for at least two decades. But, but, but people are rational!!
Liberal progressives seem to have inherited from liberal theorists the idea that rationality is a given. My concern is that whatever rationality is, it's not a given. It's a potentiality. Humans have the capacity to be rational. Humans are not automatically rational. Rationality is capacity that can either be developed or diminished.
Hence, my final point in my original post: Among the core problems in the US is the lack of equal access to quality education that engages with ethics, social and political theory, and critical thinking. The state of the US education system, all the way from grade school to higher education, is in horrible disrepair due to decades of neglect under neoliberal capitalist leaning policies. So, really, it's no mystery that a non-inconsequential number of people in the US can't tell fact from lie and are easily manipulated by rhetoric.
I'm not knocking rationality. I'm a proponent of developing rationality. But, we ought to get clear on what we mean by "rationality." I'm not an advocate for the neoliberal conception of rationality that holds that what it means to be rational is to calculate and maximize one's self-interest. Nor am I an advocate for rationality as a given. I am a proponent of democracy. Democracy needs rationality in order to thrive. Rationality needs to be developed via education.
Thanks kindly for the dialogue and best wishes.
------------------------------
Betty Stoneman
Doc Candidate
Emory University
Atlanta GA
|
|
| 2. | Re: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …" | | | Concerning coherence in science: I have lately been rereading Susan Haack's Defending Science, Within Reason (which I recommend highly), and she employs the helpful analogy between scientific discovery and solving a crossword puzzle. When we first begin a crossword our answers are highly tentative, since all we have to go on are the clues and the number of letters allowed. There will be much ambiguity. Thus, if the clue is "land of the little people," and eight letters are allowed, the answer could be "Lilliput" from Gulliver's Travels or "The Shire," for the home of Tolkien's Hobbits. However, as we begin to fill in the intersecting answers we see which of those two answers (if either) will fit with the other ones. Of course, everything is tentative; we may have to go back and erase one of the answers already filled in if it conflicts with a new answer in which we have much confidence. Yet we gain confidence in all of our answers as the puzzle fills in and our answers are supported by multiply intersecting answers. Further, each particular answer supports the correctness of the whole.
Haack refers to the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA to illustrate the similarity. Watson and Crick had to discard models that were found to conflict with robustly supported information from other researchers such as Erwin Chargaff and Rosalind Franklin. Confidence in the final double helix structure came from the fact that it could not only provide a mechanism for the transmission of genetic information, but that it was consistent with so many intersecting findings. The ultimately successful model also brought together into a coherent whole the disparate pieces of evidence that went into its construction. Such intricately reticulating relations of mutual support between part and whole (Quine's "web of belief") demonstrate both the complexity of justification in science and its strength. To take another example, the real strength of evolutionary theory is not any particular piece of evidence such as homologies or transitional fossils. It is that, as Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (emphasis added)." That is, evolution provides the framework that unifies diverse bits of biological knowledge into a mutually-supporting whole.
It is this complexity of interconnecting and holistic support that makes it hard for me to take seriously the suggestion made by Rorty and others that maybe the entire history of science could have unfolded differently. That is, we could instead have an equally coherent and empirically successful science based on entirely different concepts and theories. In other words, perhaps, in the words of the old Firesign Theater album: Everything you know is wrong! We could now have a successful physics of boojums and snarks rather than quarks and electrons. I don't think so.
BTW, with so many of us stuck and home and telecommuting due to the pandemic, this opportunity to exchange with colleagues is most appreciated.
------------------------------
Keith Parsons
Professor of Philosophy and Humanities
University of Houston - Clear Lake
Houston TX
------------------------------
|
| | Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward Flag as Inappropriate | -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-26-2020 08:39
From: Sandra Tomsons
Subject: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …"
I want to thank everyone for this interesting and important epistemological discussion. Everyone's claims are so inviting for comment that it is difficult to decide where to jump in.
Some immediate responses:
1. Philosophers are prone to defining words in such a way that they support their premises and hence their conclusion. So, I predict I will be doing that as I formulate my own arguments.
2. I think it might be better to describe human beings as having the potential to be rational than as rational. Not that I care whether anyone in the Canon agrees with me; but for those who do, I think the Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Kant and so on would agree with me. Being rational is an activity we engage and some may choose not to bother. Political discourse in North America does not encourage rational engagement so it is easy to understand why many opt to have faith in someone and consider themselves rational. Reasons are easy to compile; evidence abounds.
3. Which brings me to faith. I agree Professor Main that faith is a strong certainty one has in the object of faith, and truths 'attached' to the object. However, this is not inconsistent with one exercising one's reason and hence having some justification for one's certainty, for example, that some god or other exists or one's friend or husband is behaving as a friend or husband should behave. Faith can be blind or based on a lot of light. This, of course, depends on one's capacities and one's willingness to work to acquire knowledge. Reason does not exercise itself any more than my arms or legs. I have to make both move.
4. Professor Main, you also apply the coherence theory of truth well to science since the truth of various theories would be reasonably challenged if there is inconsistency. However, I don't think incoherence in scientific theory provides justification or makes reasonable doubt of the external world any more than philosophers' arguments. If one is a philosopher, I would hope that truths only based on reason will be as provisional as those based on faith. Both need to be grounded in one's experience of the world. A reason (i.e. thinker) that not touch base with the reality is as undependable as faith that is ignoring it.
5. Thank you all for helping me clarify my thoughts and a special thank you to those who have prompted them, and anyone who has read them to the end.
------------------------------
[Sandra [Tomsons] [Ph.D.]
[Co-editor]
[Canadian Journal of Practical Philosophy]
[Paqtnkek First Nation] [Mi'kma'ki]
|
|
| 3. | Re: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …" | | | Prof, Fox,
You are exactly right that we all have this propensity. Previously I used to comment on a popular atheist site. When religious people would comment, their contributions often were rather shallow and invited the ridicule and disdain of the atheist commenters. I suggested that we might invite some of the better known theist philosophers--and named several--to offer comments that would be deeper and more informed. I was then contemptuously told that I must be an ignoramus because I was not aware that each of those thinkers had been refuted "over and over and over and over and over" again (I may have omitted an "over."). Further, NO theists had anything intelligent to say. I realized at that point that I had been participating in the same sort of echo chamber that I criticized elsewhere. I have not participated on that site since. So, I think that we all have that treacherous tendency to slip into a comfortable bubble, but sometimes we will benefit from a "wake up" experience that tells us what we are doing.
------------------------------
Keith Parsons
Professor of Philosophy and Humanities
University of Houston - Clear Lake
Houston TX
------------------------------
|
| | Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward Flag as Inappropriate | -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11-25-2020 22:08
From: Nathan Fox
Subject: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …"
Dear Prof. Parsons,
I am quite curious about one of your comments: "Many millions of Americans now are hermetically sealed in information bubbles with the consequence that they will believe anything they are told--except the truth". I wonder about how such a thing could happen, how some significant part of the population can be sealed in an information bubble, while another significant part of the population avoids this. To be honest, I worry that we may all have some propensity (or a great propensity) to get locked-in like this--particularly if we've assessed that there is much at stake for ourselves and those we care about.
------------------------------
Nathan Fox
Vancouver BC
|
|
| 4. | Re: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …" | | | Dear Correspondents, This has been a thought provoking exchange of ideas. I try as much as I can to avoid extremes, but I am often unaware of a presumption until someone points it out to me or I encounter a well thought out position that does not relay on it. By saying that science may be incomplete on some issues (e.g., quantum mechanics and relativity theory), I did not mean to say that all other areas of science (and of knowledge in general) are thereby called into question as unreliable. A lot depends on context, scope and scale. Newtonian physics is adequate for the construction of even a very large building, but the accuracy of a satellite GPS system requires calculating quantum and relativistic effects. Sometimes, even Aristotelean physics works just fine; when I drive my car, I have to apply a constant force to keep it moving (i.e., keep mu foot on the gas pedal). An incompatibility (lack of coherence, or a degree of incoherence) in some areas (quantum mechanics and relativity theory, again) does not render the entire discipline totally incoherent; both quantum mechanics and relativity theory (I need a different example) have as their base centuries of hard work and insights. I agree with Ms. Thomson that humans have a potential for rational thinking, a capacity which needs to be developed to avoid a rudimentary complacency (of course, with many possible degrees of development). For one thing, it is easy to adopt the perspectives and biases of those around you; what "everyone knows" is familiar because you've heard it all your life, and when you repeat them, everyone says you're right. Because this is relatively easy, a large number of people will have that attitude. Conversely, a questioning attitude may not be rewarded; it may be actively discouraged or even punished (e.g., burned at the stake). It doesn't have to be that way, but people need to be exposed to good examples of serious, rational inquiry. I agree with Prof. Parsons that a coherent physics bases on boojums and snarks is hard to imagine. The possibility that the history of science might have been different is a a very abstract and theoretical idea, whereas that science that we have and which did develop is very concrete, successful and consistent to the point that tinkering with its basic premises seems doomed to failure (but some scientists imagine worlds in which the "laws of nature" are different, but those differences are conceived and calculated within the present "classic" or "standard" theory). The abstract idea would be an extrapolation from the possibility the person who had a particular insight might not have had it. If an apple really did fall on Newton's head, what if it missed, would he have written the Principia Mathematica, would someone else have tried and failed? On the other side, sometimes the time just seems right for someone for someone or other to figure out what comes next, for example, Darwin and Wallace developed theories of evolution at about the same time. Sincerely, Edward Main Tulsa, Oklahoma
|
| | Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward Flag as Inappropriate | -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 11/26/2020 1:41:00 PM
From: Keith Parsons
Subject: RE: " … or an epistemologist or whatever that is …"
Prof, Fox,
You are exactly right that we all have this propensity. Previously I used to comment on a popular atheist site. When religious people would comment, their contributions often were rather shallow and invited the ridicule and disdain of the atheist commenters. I suggested that we might invite some of the better known theist philosophers--and named several--to offer comments that would be deeper and more informed. I was then contemptuously told that I must be an ignoramus because I was not aware that each of those thinkers had been refuted "over and over and over and over and over" again (I may have omitted an "over."). Further, NO theists had anything intelligent to say. I realized at that point that I had been participating in the same sort of echo chamber that I criticized elsewhere. I have not participated on that site since. So, I think that we all have that treacherous tendency to slip into a comfortable bubble, but sometimes we will benefit from a "wake up" experience that tells us what we are doing.
------------------------------
Keith Parsons
Professor of Philosophy and Humanities
University of Houston - Clear Lake
Houston TX
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
