DOCSLIB.ORG

William James's Pragmatism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES William James’s Pragmatism: The Practical Value of Personal truth and Liberation from Truth Sam Fogarty College of Arts and Science, Vanderbilt University It is easy to mistake one’s beliefs about the world as absolute knowledge. In this paper, I argue that any view of knowledge as absolute, or objective, is a misrepresentation of the limits of hu- man understanding. In contrast, I argue for the pragmatic use of truth as conceived by William James. I contend that if one views truth as a practical instrument valued solely for its ability to help humans, one can place scientific and religious beliefs on equal footing. By valuing truth for its practical effects, one may return truth to its intended function: to be one’s closest ally in overcoming life’s challenges. “The influences of the senses has in most men overpow- make to any one if this notion rather than that notion ered the mind to the degree that the walls of space and were true?” (60). time have come to look solid, real and insurmountable; In this paper, I will delineate James’s pragmatic and to speak with levity of these limits in the world is the view of truth and its proposed effect on the way that sign of insanity.” we navigate our lives and derive meaning. As I discuss -Ralph Waldo Emerson his philosophy, I will point out and respond to com- mon objections to James’s philosophy. I will argue that With Pragmatism, William James expounds James’s practical epistemology is a refreshing view that the practical value of truth by applying the pragmatic frees a thoughtful person from the distractions of “Ob- method to abstract metaphysical questions. James chal- ject Truth” and abstract ponderings by reorienting the lenges the traditional view of truth as objective, existing belief-verification process towards tangible experience. separate from the human experience. Rather, he offers In doing so, Pragmatism leads the thoughtful individual a method of “experiential empiricism” to explore life’s out of contemplative stagnation and towards action. I most important and challenging questions. The essays will argue that by allowing a person to amalgamate the comprising Pragmatism employ easily intelligible lan- most life-enhancing and instrumental beliefs with full guage, as they were originally delivered as eight sepa- conviction, Pragmatism empowers the individual to craft rate lectures in 1906 and 1907. Motivated by his own a personal philosophy capable of overcoming their most dissatisfaction with scientific theory and spiritual belief pressing challenges and of satisfying their most funda- as sufficient guides to human satisfaction and sources mental needs. meaning, James offers more than an academic treatise. In order to fully understand the purpose of With the work, James directly addresses the seemingly James’s philosophy and the function it seeks to serve, incompatible views of spiritual belief and modern scien- it is necessary to first describePragmatism’s historical tific discovery in order to illustratePragmatism’s ability context, James’s view of human psychology, and his to, “be the happy harmonizer of empiricist [scientific] motivation for developing a guide to life. James grew ways of thinking with the more religious demands of up in an affluent family and received little practical human beings” (70). To accomplish such a task, James guidance as to what to do with his life. Driven by intel- expounds a practical method for navigating life that lectual curiosity, James studied medicine and eventually requires open-mindedness and intellectual humility. He the new field of psychology, both of which shaped his proposes that a belief’s validity is determined by its tan- understanding of human beings and subsequently his gible impact on or usefulness for human beings, rather pragmatic method. As the author of Pragmatism’s intro- than by some external standard of Truth (Capital T for duction notes, for James, “the world was constituted by an objective, singular, eternal Truth). James rejects soci- the activity of mind or consciousness acting upon a con- ety’s obsession with the ever-elusive “Objective Truth,” fusion of unorganized data. And it was the willing aspect and calls for a shift of focus onto simply what works, or of consciousness that imposed the order which gave us what “pays.” Thus, to test a belief’s validity, the prag- a world of reality and which enabled us to survive in a matist must ask, “what difference would it practically precarious universe” (xii). Or, as James poetically states Spring 2012 | Volume 8 | © 2012 • Vanderbilt University Board of Trust 1 VANDERBILT UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH JOURNAL in reference to our knowledge and awareness, “the trail of You want a system that will com- the human serpent is thus over everything” (68). As will bine both things, the scientific become clear, James’s understanding of human conscious- loyalty to facts and willingness to ness as subjective perceptions, unique to the individual, take account of them, the spirit of likely contributed to his epistemology and his promotion adaptation and accommodation, in of the practical use of truth. Upon completing his degree, short, but also the old confidence James moved back in with his parents and struggled with in human values and the resultant extended bouts of depression due to a sense of aimless- spontaneity, whether of the reli- ness and meaninglessness. gious or of this romantic type” (49). Unfortunately, scientific and philosophic pursuits For James, the pragmatic method accomplishes this goal provided little guidance for James, because in his eyes, of marrying fact with human meaning in a valid and life- both fields offered unsatisfactory and contradictory an- enhancing way, by reframing the way that we appraise swers to life’s questions. On the one hand, the empirical our knowledge of the world (using we in reference to all approach of science offered the Darwinian explanation for human beings). James starts by challenging our epistemo- life. This ontology meant materialism, determinism, and logical abilities and by defining a pragmatic definition of fatalism to James: an existence of arbitrary origin, mean- truth. ingless existence, and definite extinction1. On the other James rejects the common human conviction that hand, after classical religion had been extinguished by we can witness facts and deduce perfect knowledge about scientific findings, James saw only “retreating” religions the world untouched by human bias, stating that, “purely and abstract philosophies. Each belief system offered objective truth…is nowhere to be found” (68). In con- ontologies crafted outside of tangible fact, likely in order trast to pragmatism’s view of truth, James points out that to remain semi-compatible with Darwinism, which for individuals frequently mistake their understanding of the James meant that they were inapplicable to the human world as constant, unyielding, and determined (46). As experience. As he articulates, the abstract philosophies the scientific method encourages, we measure the world that developed in response to Darwin force the believer to, through our senses, acting as, “an absorber,” of informa- “pay for your escape by losing contact with the concrete tion. However, “the great [false] assumption of the intel- parts of life…. You can deduce no single actual particular lectualists is that truth means essentially an inert static from the notion of it. It is compatible with any state of relation” (124), where the information we receive and the things whatever being true here below” (49). But does this ideas we hold are pure, “copies [of] reality” (123). This incompatible dichotomy still exist today, tormenting those view lead one to believe that we, “record truth, inhuman who crave evidence for the eternal meaning of their lives? though it be, and submit to it!” (48). With this epistemo- I argue yes; science and spirituality are equally in- logical view, your focus becomes that of a passive ob- compatible today, especially for those who crave coherent server such that you can only believe what you can verify. evidence for why human lives matter on an eternal scale. Once verified or experienced, the knowledge gained is Science has not yet offered an explanation of the existence considered perfect knowledge of the observed phenom- of human beings beyond the random chance of evolution enon, object, or system: an assumption resting on both the and life’s precursors, and all empirical evidence indicates infallibility of the knowledge and the permanence of the that there is no life after death. Similarly, explanations that world. Further, knowledge is valued without reference to attempt to give human life eternal meaning lack scien- the belief’s effect on human beings and is considered a tific evidence to support their ontologies. So where does possession of the mind. With such a view, “when you’ve this leave a fact-minded person seeking evidence for the got your true idea of anything, there’s an end of the mat- meaning of his or her existence? As James succinctly puts ter. You’re in possession; you know; you have fulfilled it, “you find an empirical philosophy that is not religious your thinking destiny… Epistemologically you are in enough, and a religious philosophy that is not empirical stable equilibrium” (124). By believing one’s knowledge enough for your purpose” (47). Separately, each belief to be objective in this way, one easily falls into passivity system falls short of fully satisfying human’s practical after developing a belief; you consider the world to be and value-centered needs. So what type of philosophical permanent and your truths to be objective knowledge of system does one need? James puts it perfectly: that world, so you do not need to reevaluate your beliefs or develop a more thorough understanding of the world. Searching for the answers to more metaphysical questions, 1 Pragmatism, x.
Recommended publications
  • Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?

    Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?

    NOU^S 38:2 (2004) 197–232 Would ‘‘Direct Realism’’ Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction? MARC LANGE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I Recently, there has been a modest resurgence of interest in the ‘‘Humean’’ problem of induction. For several decades following the recognized failure of Strawsonian ‘‘ordinary-language’’ dissolutions and of Wesley Salmon’s elaboration of Reichenbach’s pragmatic vindication of induction, work on the problem of induction languished. Attention turned instead toward con- firmation theory, as philosophers sensibly tried to understand precisely what it is that a justification of induction should aim to justify. Now, however, in light of Bayesian confirmation theory and other developments in epistemology, several philosophers have begun to reconsider the classical problem of induction. In section 2, I shall review a few of these developments. Though some of them will turn out to be unilluminating, others will profitably suggest that we not meet inductive scepticism by trying to justify some alleged general principle of ampliative reasoning. Accordingly, in section 3, I shall examine how the problem of induction arises in the context of one particular ‘‘inductive leap’’: the confirmation, most famously by Henrietta Leavitt and Harlow Shapley about a century ago, that a period-luminosity relation governs all Cepheid variable stars. This is a good example for the inductive sceptic’s purposes, since it is difficult to see how the sparse background knowledge available at the time could have entitled stellar astronomers to regard their observations as justifying this grand inductive generalization. I shall argue that the observation reports that confirmed the Cepheid period- luminosity law were themselves ‘‘thick’’ with expectations regarding as yet unknown laws of nature.
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning

    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning

    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
  • The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence of Intent

    The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific Evidence of Intent

    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 4 1999 The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific videnceE of Intent Erica Beecher-Monas Edgar Garcia-Rill Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Evidence Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Erica Beecher-Monas and Edgar Garcia-Rill, The Law and the Brain: Judging Scientific videnceE of Intent, 1 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 243 (1999). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol1/iss2/4 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE LAW AND THE BRAIN: JUDGING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF INTENT Erica Beecher-Monas* and Edgar Garcia-Rill, Ph.D.** INTRODUCTION As evidentiary gatekeepers, judges must be ready to evaluate expert testimony about science and the brain. A wide variety of cases present issues of mental state, many doubtless with battling experts seeking to testify on these issues. This poses a dilemma for nonspecialist judges. How is a nonscientist to judge scientific evidence? How can a nonscientist decide if testimony about mental state meets the criteria of good science? This essay offers a general overview of the issue of evaluating scientific evidence and is aimed at exploring the issues involved, but not attempting easy answers. Of necessity, this requires thinking about how science works.
  • Life with Augustine

    Life with Augustine

    Life with Augustine ...a course in his spirit and guidance for daily living By Edmond A. Maher ii Life with Augustine © 2002 Augustinian Press Australia Sydney, Australia. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following people: ► the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel, Australia, for support- ing this project, with special mention of Pat Fahey osa, Kevin Burman osa, Pat Codd osa and Peter Jones osa ► Laurence Mooney osa for assistance in editing ► Michael Morahan osa for formatting this 2nd Edition ► John Coles, Peter Gagan, Dr. Frank McGrath fms (Brisbane CEO), Benet Fonck ofm, Peter Keogh sfo for sharing their vast experience in adult education ► John Rotelle osa, for granting us permission to use his English translation of Tarcisius van Bavel’s work Augustine (full bibliography within) and for his scholarly advice Megan Atkins for her formatting suggestions in the 1st Edition, that have carried over into this the 2nd ► those generous people who have completed the 1st Edition and suggested valuable improvements, especially Kath Neehouse and friends at Villanova College, Brisbane Foreword 1 Dear Participant Saint Augustine of Hippo is a figure in our history who has appealed to the curiosity and imagination of many generations. He is well known for being both sinner and saint, for being a bishop yet also a fellow pilgrim on the journey to God. One of the most popular and attractive persons across many centuries, his influence on the church has continued to our current day. He is also renowned for his influ- ence in philosophy and psychology and even (in an indirect way) art, music and architecture.
  • Psycholinguistics

    Psycholinguistics

    11/09/2013 Psycholinguistics What do these activities have in common? What kind of process is involved in producing and understanding language? 1 11/09/2013 Questions • What is psycholinguistics? • What are the main topics of psycholinguistics? 9.1 Introduction • * Psycholinguistics is the study of the language processing mechanisms. Psycholinguistics deals with the mental processes a person uses in producing and understanding language. It is concerned with the relationship between language and the human mind, for example, how word, sentence, and discourse meaning are represented and computed in the mind. 2 11/09/2013 9.1 Introduction * As the name suggests, it is a subject which links psychology and linguistics. • Psycholinguistics is interdisciplinary in nature and is studied by people in a variety of fields, such as psychology, cognitive science, and linguistics. It is an area of study which draws insights from linguistics and psychology and focuses upon the comprehension and production of language. • The scope of psycholinguistics • The common aim of psycholinguists is to find out the structures and processes which underline a human’s ability to speak and understand language. • Psycholinguists are not necessarily interested in language interaction between people. They are trying above all to probe into what is happening within the individual. 3 11/09/2013 The scope of psycholinguistics • At its heart, psycholinguistic work consists of two questions. – What knowledge of language is needed for us to use language? – What processes are involved in the use of language? The “knowledge” question • Four broad areas of language knowledge: Semantics deals with the meanings of sentences and words.
  • Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion

    Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion

    Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion and Non-Religion Ann Taves, University of California, Santa Barbara Egil Asprem, Stockholm University Elliott Ihm, University of California, Santa Barbara Abstract: To get beyond the solely negative identities signaled by atheism and agnosticism, we have to conceptualize an object of study that includes religions and non-religions. We advocate a shift from “religions” to “worldviews” and define worldviews in terms of the human ability to ask and reflect on “big questions” ([BQs], e.g., what exists? how should we live?). From a worldviews perspective, atheism, agnosticism, and theism are competing claims about one feature of reality and can be combined with various answers to the BQs to generate a wide range of worldviews. To lay a foundation for the multidisciplinary study of worldviews that includes psychology and other sciences, we ground them in humans’ evolved world-making capacities. Conceptualizing worldviews in this way allows us to identify, refine, and connect concepts that are appropriate to different levels of analysis. We argue that the language of enacted and articulated worldviews (for humans) and worldmaking and ways of life (for humans and other animals) is appropriate at the level of persons or organisms and the language of sense making, schemas, and meaning frameworks is appropriate at the cognitive level (for humans and other animals). Viewing the meaning making processes that enable humans to generate worldviews from an evolutionary perspective allows us to raise news questions for psychology with particular relevance for the study of nonreligious worldviews. Keywords: worldviews, meaning making, religion, nonreligion Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Raymond F.
  • Achievements and Fallacies in Hume's Account of Infinite

    Achievements and Fallacies in Hume's Account of Infinite

    -1- ACHIEVEMENTS AND FALLACIES IN HUME’S ACCOUNT OF INFINITE DIVISIBILITY James Franklin Hume Studies 20 (1994): 85-101 Throughout history,almost all mathematicians, physicists and philosophers have been of the opinion that space and time are infinitely divisible. That is, it is usually believedthat space and time do not consist of atoms, but that anypiece of space and time of non-zero size, howeversmall, can itself be divided into still smaller parts. This assumption is included in geometry,asinEuclid, and also in the Euclidean and non- Euclidean geometries used in modern physics. Of the fewwho have denied that space and time are infinitely divisible, the most notable are the ancient atomists, and Berkeleyand Hume. All of these assert not only that space and time might be atomic, but that theymust be. Infinite divisibility is, theysay, impossible on purely conceptual grounds. In the hundred years or so before Hume’s Tr eatise, there were occasional treatments of the matter,in places such as the Port Royal Logic, and Isaac Barrow’smathematical lectures of the 1660’s, 1 Theydonot add anything substantial to medievaltreatments of the same topic. 2 Mathematicians certainly did not take seriously the possibility that space and time might be atomic; Pascal, for example, instances the Chevalier de Me´re´’s belief in atomic space as proof of his total incompetence in mathematics. 3 The problem acquired amore philosophical cast when Bayle, in his Dictionary, tried to showthat both the assertion and the denial of the infinite divisibility of space led to contradictions; the problem thus appears as a general challenge to "Reason".
  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and the LAW by Bemvam L

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and the LAW by Bemvam L

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 7 1-1967 The cS ientific ethoM d and the Law Bernard L. Diamond Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bernard L. Diamond, The Scientific etM hod and the Law, 19 Hastings L.J. 179 (1967). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol19/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE LAW By BEmVAm L. DIivmN* WHEN I was an adolescent, one of the major influences which determined my choice of medicine as a career was a fascinating book entitled Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine. This huge volume, originally published in 1897, is a museum of pictures and lurid de- scriptions of human monstrosities and abnormalities of all kinds, many with sexual overtones of a kind which would especially appeal to a morbid adolescent. I never thought, at the time I first read this book, that some day, I too, would be an anomaly and curiosity of medicine. But indeed I am, for I stand before you here as a most curious and anomalous individual: a physician, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and (I hope) a scientist, who also happens to be a professor of law. But I am not a lawyer, nor in any way trained in the law; hence, the anomaly. The curious question is, of course, why should a non-lawyer physician and scientist, like myself, be on the faculty of a reputable law school.
  • Pragmatism Is As Pragmatism Does: of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality

    Pragmatism Is As Pragmatism Does: of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality

    Volume 31 Issue 3 Summer 2001 Summer 2001 Pragmatism Is as Pragmatism Does: Of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality Linda E. Fisher Recommended Citation Linda E. Fisher, Pragmatism Is as Pragmatism Does: Of Posner, Public Policy, and Empirical Reality, 31 N.M. L. Rev. 455 (2001). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol31/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr PRAGMATISM IS AS PRAGMATISM DOES: OF POSNER, PUBLIC POLICY, AND EMPIRICAL REALITY LINDA E. FISHER* Stanley Fish believes that my judicial practice could not possibly be influenced by my pragmatic jurisprudence. Pragmatism is purely a method of description, so I am guilty of the "mistake of thinking that a description of a practice has cash value in a game other than the game of description." But he gives no indication that he has tested this assertion by reading my judicial opinions.' I. INTRODUCTION Richard Posner, until recently the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, has been much studied; he is frequently controversial, hugely prolific, candid, and often entertaining.2 Judge Posner is repeatedly in the news, most recently as a mediator in the Microsoft antitrust litigation3 and as a critic of President Clinton.4 Posner's shift over time, from a wealth-maximizing economist to a legal pragmatist (with wealth maximization as a prominent pragmatic goal), is by now well documented.' This shift has been set forth most clearly in The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory,6 as well as Overcoming Law7 and The Problems of Jurisprudence.8 The main features of his pragmatism include a Holmesian emphasis on law as a prediction of how a judge will rule.9 An important feature of law, then, is its ability to provide clear, stable guidance to those affected by it.
  • The Three Meanings of Meaning in Life: Distinguishing Coherence, Purpose, and Significance

    The Three Meanings of Meaning in Life: Distinguishing Coherence, Purpose, and Significance

    The Journal of Positive Psychology Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice ISSN: 1743-9760 (Print) 1743-9779 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20 The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance Frank Martela & Michael F. Steger To cite this article: Frank Martela & Michael F. Steger (2016) The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11:5, 531-545, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 Published online: 27 Jan 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 425 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20 Download by: [Colorado State University] Date: 06 July 2016, At: 11:55 The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2016 Vol. 11, No. 5, 531–545, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623 The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance Frank Martelaa* and Michael F. Stegerb,c aFaculty of Theology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, Helsinki 00014, Finland; bDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, 1876 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1876, USA; cSchool of Behavioural Sciences, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa (Received 25 June 2015; accepted 3 December 2015) Despite growing interest in meaning in life, many have voiced their concern over the conceptual refinement of the con- struct itself. Researchers seem to have two main ways to understand what meaning in life means: coherence and pur- pose, with a third way, significance, gaining increasing attention.
  • A WIN-WIN SOLUTION the Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D

    A WIN-WIN SOLUTION the Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D

    A WIN-WIN SOLUTION The Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D. MAY 2016 About the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, solely dedicated to advancing Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all children. First established as the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in 1996, the Foundation promotes school choice as the most effective and equitable way to improve the quality of K–12 education in America. The Friedman Foundation is dedicated to research, education, and outreach on the vital issues and implications related to school choice. A WIN-WIN SOLUTION The Empirical Evidence on School Choice FOURTH EDITION Greg Forster, Ph.D. MAY 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3 Choice in Education .................................................................................................................3 Why Science Matters—the “Gold Standard” and Other Methods ....................................4 The Method of This Report .....................................................................................................6 Criteria for Study Inclusion or Exclusion .......................................................................6
  • Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement

    Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research Communication Studies, Department of Spring 4-12-2011 Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement Brent Yergensen University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Yergensen, Brent, "Secular Salvation: Sacred Rhetorical Invention in the String Theory Movement" (2011). Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research. 6. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication Studies Theses, Dissertations, and Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT by Brent Yergensen A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Major: Communication Studies Under the Supervision of Dr. Ronald Lee Lincoln, Nebraska April, 2011 ii SECULAR SALVATION: SACRED RHETORICAL INVENTION IN THE STRING THEORY MOVEMENT Brent Yergensen, Ph.D. University of Nebraska, 2011 Advisor: Ronald Lee String theory is argued by its proponents to be the Theory of Everything. It achieves this status in physics because it provides unification for contradictory laws of physics, namely quantum mechanics and general relativity. While based on advanced theoretical mathematics, its public discourse is growing in prevalence and its rhetorical power is leading to a scientific revolution, even among the public.