• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pragmatism and Epistemology

Taffer

Illuminator
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
4,530
After entering into a discussion here the topic of Pragmatism came up. After doing a bit of reading on the topic, I must admit I am somewhat confused as to the Pragmatic stance in Epistemology.

The Pragmatist says knowledge that does not lead to any 'real life' benefit is not knowledge (thus the argument between Materialists and Idealist becomes moot). But are Pragmatists saying that true knowledge is knowledge that leads to some human benefit? Or are they simply saying that the only knowledge worth knowing is that which leads to a human benefit?

I wonder if someone more knowledgable then me can explain it.
 
What knowledge doesn't lead to human benefit?

When, for example, there is an argument between two theories. Both explain the phenomenon equally well, and choosing one or the other doesn't effect the way us in any way, as we would behave (or have knowledge of) in the presence of said phenomenon the same either way. In this, the knowledge of the 'correct' theory does not benefit humans in any way.
 
It most certainly does! Once one theory is shown to be correct, then other theories can be built on it. The advance and progress of human knowledge inherently benefits humans. Look at it this way: If a human studies it, then it is likely other humans are interested in it. By studying the subject, whatever it may be, the researcher benefits those who are interested in that subject matter.

I don't see where knowledge cannot benefit humans.
 
I never claimed to be a Pragmatist. ;)

Although, I'd be interesting in knowing how you think there is any human benefit between choosing Determinism or Idealism.
 
Erg, I did it again. Materialism and Idealism, not Determinism. Gosh, I'm silly! :(
 
Ah.


Well, what do you mean by Materialist and Idealist?

I'm a bit of an amateur when it comes to formal philosophy. I've studied Hegel and a few others from his era, and read some Metaphysics, but I'm not very 'current' as they say.
 
BTW, I'm going to be off the Fora until about next Wed, so don't think I've run away from this thread or the other..:D

I've got to get my wedding on course...even if I must kill people(like, say, my future mother in law, or the people at the reception site) to do so.

*note* I am not actually planning murder......maybe just some liberal maiming;)
 
An example of a concept dismissed by pragmatism is the "hands-off god." He has no affect on the world, so the entire idea is meaningless.

Bertrand Russell somehow dismissed pragmatism, but I don't understand how. Anyone?

~~ Paul
 
A section of a book talked about Pragmatism.

Here's some quotes.
"It suggested that human knowledge should be envisaged more as an adaptive response to solve problems."

"An idea may be stringently argued but if it doesn't make any difference to everyday life, then it isn't important or "true". "

"Human theories make sense only if they have "cash value" by being useful. "
From the above, may I point out certain aspects about pragmatism you had not included with your Opening Post.

(1) Action.
Adaptive action. Solve problem.

(2) Focus on Everyday life.
"truth" that will result in benefit only yesterday is useless.

(3) Cash value.
Not just useful. It must bring "cash value". Value that is recognised and accepted within the immediate society.

You seemed to have pinned too much hope on benefit of knowledge. Which in fact, the importance of a piece of knowledge changes with time and people.
 
From the above, may I point out certain aspects about pragmatism you had not included with your Opening Post.

That's because I'm just trying to get my head around pragmatism, not explaining it ;).

So from what you say, a pragmatist will call any knowledge useful if it has a solution to a problem, or is basically useful to mankind.

But that doesn't answer my original question. How do pragmatists stand on the epistemological definition of 'true knowledge'. Does a pragmatists define true knowledge as any knowledge that leads to help mankind? In which case, it is somewhat of a dogmatists position. Or do they simply say that the only knowledge worth knowing, be it true knowledge or not, is that which helps mankind?
 
Taffer said:
That's because I'm just trying to get my head around pragmatism, not explaining it ;).
I don't understand what you mean by "get my head around"

Taffer said:
So from what you say, a pragmatist will call any knowledge useful if it has a solution to a problem, or is basically useful to mankind.
Your solution may be my problem. So "useful" is a subjective term. I would say that, if it concerns his interest, a pragmatist will acknowledge the possible effect of the knowledge.
A pragmatic horse would not care about the usefulness of knowledge that affects only mankind.

Taffer said:
But that doesn't answer my original question. How do pragmatists stand on the epistemological definition of 'true knowledge'.
Here's a quote from CS Peirce (1839-1914), who is related to Pragmatism.
"There are no "ultimate truths" that philosophy can establish about the nature of "reality". Individual ideas must always be tested by the effects they produce."

He also he recognized that all human scientific knowledge is always provisional ...
Taffer said:
Does a pragmatists define true knowledge as any knowledge that leads to help mankind? In which case, it is somewhat of a dogmatists position. Or do they simply say that the only knowledge worth knowing, be it true knowledge or not, is that which helps mankind?
I think you have to ask the hardcore pragmatist. But since even scientific knowledge is considered provisional, there should not be hard to conceive them saying "definition" as provisional.
 
Here's a quote from CS Peirce (1839-1914), who is related to Pragmatism.
"There are no "ultimate truths" that philosophy can establish about the nature of "reality". Individual ideas must always be tested by the effects they produce."

This seems to pretty much answer my quetsion. Pragmatism is not so much of a Epistemological philosophy. They admit that there is no certain knowledge, and go on to say knowledge should be judged upon benefit? Is this correct?
 
Sorry to be so late in joining in...

A brief snippet from William Baum's understanding behaviorism--an excellent text for someone who is interested in applying behaviorism to social problems, by the way--on Pragmatism:
James presented pragmatism as a method for settling disputes and as a theory of truth. Some questions seem to lead only to endless arguments back and forth, with no satisfactory resolution:
Is the world one or many? --fated or free? --material or spiritual?--here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right. (James, 1975 --orig 1907-1909--, pp. 42-43)
In other words, if the answer to a question would in no way change the way science would proceed, then the question itself is at fault and merits no attention.

You might already have guessed that the question of whether there is a real, independent, objective world out there qualifies as one of those questions about which dispute is idle. That is just how James and Peirce regarded it. James wrote that our conception of an object consists of nothing beyond its practical effects: "what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare" (p. 43). What matters about a bicycle is that I see it, call it by its name, may lend it to a friend, may ride it myself. Pragmatism remains agnostic about whether there is a real bicycle behind those effects.

With such an attitude toward questions, pragmatism must imply a special attitude toward the truth of answers. As a theory of truth, pragmatism roughly equates truth with explanatory power. If the question of whether there is a real universe out there is idle, then so too is the question of whether there is some final, absolute truth. Instead of ideas being simply true or false, James proposed that ideas can be more and less true. One idea is truer than another if it allows us to explain and understand more of our experience. James put it this way: "Any idea upon which we can ride, so to speak, any idea that will carry us prosperously to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally" (p.49). The idea that the sun and stars move around the earth explained only why they move across the sky, but the idea that the earth orbits the sun while rotating on its axis is more true, because it also explains why we have seasons. Strictly speaking, however, we will never know whether the earth really revolves around the sun; another, even truer, theory could conceivably come along.

If you ask me, pragmatism is the perfect philosophy for a skeptic.
 
Perhaps so, Merc... yet;

Self-evident truths are axiomatic, necessary, and universal, such as "All the radii of a given circle are equal", or "The whole is greater than its part". Truths that are not self-evident may change, if the facts change, as, for instance, "The pen I hold in my hand is six inches long". There are necessary truths, which are a legitimate standard by which to test new truths; and there are truths of fact, which, as long as they remain true, are also legitimate tests of new truth. Thus, systems of truth are built up, and part of the system may be axiomatic truths, which need not be re-made or made over when a new truth is acquired.

All this is swept aside by the Pragmatist with the same contempt as the naive realism which holds that concepts represent reality. There are no necessary truths, there are no axioms, says Pragmatism, but only postulates. A judgment is true if it functions in such a way as to explain our experiences, and it continues to be true only so long as it does explain our experiences. The apparent self-evidence of axioms, says the Pragmatist, is due, not to the clearness and cogency of the evidence arising from an analysis of concepts, much less is it due to the cogency of reality; it is due to a long-established habit of the race. The reason why I cannot help thinking that two and two are four is the habit of so thinking, a habit begun by our ancestors before they were human and indulged in by all their descendants ever since. All truths are, therefore, empirical: they are all "man-made"; hence Humanism is only another name for Pragmatism. Our judgments being all personal, in this sense, and based on our own experience, subject to the limitations imposed by the habits of the race, it follows that the conclusions which we draw from them when we reason are only hypothetical. They are valid only within our experience, and should not be carried beyond the region of verifiable experience. Pragmatism, as James pointed out, does not look backward to axioms, premises, systems, but forward to consequences, results, fruits. In point of fact, then, we are, if we believe the Pragmatist, obliged to subscribe to the doctrine of John Stuart Mill that all truth is hypothetical, that "can be" and "cannot be" have reference only to our experience, and that, for all we know, there may be in some remote region of space a country where two and two are five, and a thing can be and not be at the same time.

Although I doubt you will like the source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm

;)
 
hammegk said:
Perhaps so, Merc... yet;



Although I doubt you will like the source.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12333b.htm

;)
Interesting...I don't have the time right now to really look at it like I want to, but tell me, does it seem to you like the author is saying "it must not be true because I don't like the way it sounds!" I mean, the author seems to be trying to put a worst case forward for pragmatism, and I find myself pretty much nodding in agreement! (except for that jab about humanism, of course! :D)

I will comment more after I have had time to read the whole link. Thanks, hammegk!
 

Back
Top Bottom