DOCSLIB.ORG

Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(S): Cleo H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(S): Cleo H Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism Author(s): Cleo H. Cherryholmes Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, No. 6, (Aug. - Sep., 1992), pp. 13-17 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176502 Accessed: 02/05/2008 14:02 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Notes on Pragmatismand Scientific Realism CLEOH. CHERRYHOLMES Ernest R. House's article "Realism in plicit declarationof pragmatism. Here is his 1905 statement ProfessorResearch" (1991) is informative for the overview it of it: of scientificrealism. At the outset House tells provides Theword was inventedto a certainmax- the reader that he will forgo comparisons between scientific pragmatism express im of logic.... The maximis intended to furnisha method realism and and criticaltheory interpretivism, pragmatism, for the analysis of concepts ... The method prescribedin in orderto focus on "its [scientificrealism's] introduction and the maximis to traceout in the the conceivable At the end he the "How imagination explication" (p. 2). poses question: practicalconsequences-that is, the consequencesfor de- does scientificrealism compare with perspectives such as in- liberate,self-controlled conduct-of the affirmationor denial terpretivism,pragmatism, and criticaltheory?" (p. 9). A note of the concept. (Peirce,1905, p. 494) of response is not the place to pursue such comparisons in detail, but a few comments, perhaps, may provide the basis Initially, then, pragmatists sought to clarifymeanings of in- for beginning such comparisons, in this case between prag- tellectualconcepts by tracingout their "conceivablepractical matism and scientific realism. Pragmatism and scientific consequences." Later, James and Dewey shifted attention realism share a number of assumptions about science, to the importanceof the consequences of actions based upon language, and the world. Both are also opposed to posi- particular conceptions. Here is something Dewey wrote tivism/empiricism.Given their areas of agreement as well as along these lines: some common opponents, it is surprising that these two does not insist antecedent schools of thought end up so far apart. The following com- Pragmatism... upon phenomena ments a few of their affinitiesas well as a few dramatic but upon consequentphenomena; not upon the precedents profile but the of action.And this in differences that divide them. upon possibilities change pontL of view is almost in its The includes, others, C. S. Peirce, revolutionary consequences.... pragmatistcamp among [W]henwe takethe of view of we see that William Herbert point pragmatism James, George Mead, John Dewey, generalideas have a very differentrole to play than that of RichardBern- W. V. O. Quine, RichardRorty, CornelWest, reportingand registeringpast experiences. They are the stein, and, with some give and take, WilfridSellers, Nelson bases for organizingfuture observationsand experiences. Goodman, HilaryPutnam, and Donald Davidson. The work (1931,pp. 32-33) of Lee Cronbachcan also be read as having become increas- ingly pragmaticizedduring the course of his career.With the Many research traditions from positivist/empiricist (quan- exception of Lee Cronbach, these writers and the versions titative) to phenomenological/interpretivist (qualitative) to of pragmatism they have argued were not drawn upon by versions of critical research aim at getting things right; in Professor House. In addition to making an occasional prag- Dewey's words, they "insist upon antecedent phenomena" matist argument in what follows, I will juxtapose a few in "reportingand registeringpast experiences." With the ex- quotations from RichardRorty to those of House in order to ception of criticalresearch, these traditionsin differentways highlight similarities among and differences between prag- maintain that descriptions, theories, and explanations matism and scientific realism.' Two caveats before pro- precede values, social policy, and educational practice.2 ceeding. First, there are many versions of pragmatism, with Research in a pragmatictradition, however, seeks to clarify different points of emphasis, interpretations, and reinter- meanings and looks to consequences. For pragmatists, pretations. These comments do not reflect that diversity by values and visions of human action and interactionprecede any stretch of the imagination; however, at the level of a search for descriptions, theories, explanations, and nar- generality that a note of response constrains, I can think of ratives. Pragmaticresearch is driven by anticipated conse- few majordisagreements among pragmatistsas to the broad quences. Pragmaticchoices about what to researchand how themes that are mentioned and outlined. Second, it is not to go about it are conditioned by where we want to go in the clearthat ProfessorHouse puts himself in the scientificrealist broadestof senses. Values, aesthetics,politics, and social and its camp. These comments are directed, therefore, at House's normative preferences are integral to pragmaticresearch, discussion of scientific realism and not his advocacy of it, interpretation and utilization. although there are moments when he seems to advocate some aspects of scientific realism. Before contrasting one version of pragmatism with CLEO H. CHERRYHOLMESis a professorat the Departmentof House's scientific realism, I present a short introduction to PoliticalScience, Michigan State University,346 South Kedzie 48824-1024.He in curriculum, pragmatism followed by one brief account of scientific Hall, EastLansing, MI specializes realism. Peirce's pragmaticmaxim was perhaps the first ex- publicpolicy, and the philosophyof socialscience. AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1992 13 At a very general level, a pragmatic reading researcher/ ward by scientificrealists. When Donald Davidson's "On the practitionermight approach issues of reading instruction as Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" (1974) and Richard follows. He or she might start quite conventionally with a Rorty'sPhilosophy and the Mirror of Nature(1980) are included, review of research findings. Furthermore, a review of the pragmatistrejection of positivism/empiricismis quite for- researchfindings might indicatesupport for widely different midable indeed. But it would be a mistake to get caught up approachesto teaching reading, as differentfrom each other, in a contest about whether pragmatists or scientic realists perhaps, as phonics is from whole-language instruction. mount a stronger attack against positivism/empiricism.3 Pragmatists willingly concede that reading can be success- Pragmatists agree with House's beginning argument, fully taught in terms of raising achievement test scores by "Thereis no incorrigiblefoundation for science such as sense any one of a variety of ways, even by approaches to instruc- impressions or pristine facts. Rather, knowledge is a social tion that seem to be based on contradictoryassumptions and and historical product, facts are theory-laden..." (p. 3). arguments. Our pragmatistattends to the researchliterature Rorty, grouping Wittgenstein and Heidegger with Dewey, because of the opportunitiesand constraintsit suggests about puts a parallel pragmatist point like this: reading instruction. Researchfindings are importantto him or her, in Peirce's words, because of their "conceivableprac- The commonmessage of Wittgenstein,Dewey, and Heideg- historicist tical consequences-that is, the consequences for deliberate, ger is a one. Eachof the threereminds us that the of the foundationsof or self-controlled conduct" and, in Dewey's words, because investigations knowledge morality are the bases for future observations and or languageor societymay simplybe apologetics,attempts "they organizing to eternalizea certain Our focus is on the kind of com- contemporarylanguage-game, social experiences." pragmatist's practiceor self-image(1980, pp. 9-10). munity he or she wishes to promote and the kind of reading and readers such a community would value and require. In Pragmatistsand scientific realists agree, then, that scientific his or her desired community, reading could take any of research always occurs in social, historical, political, and several shapes: A first approach to reading might be for other contexts. Pragmatists and scientific realists draw dif- technical and information-gatheringpurposes; a second, for ferent lessons from this point of agreement. Pragmatiststake aesthetic pleasure in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Social Norms and Social Influence Mcdonald and Crandall 149
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Social norms and social influence Rachel I McDonald and Christian S Crandall Psychology has a long history of demonstrating the power and and their imitation is not enough to implicate social reach of social norms; they can hardly be overestimated. To norms. Imitation is common enough in many forms of demonstrate their enduring influence on a broad range of social life — what creates the foundation for culture and society phenomena, we describe two fields where research continues is not the imitation, but the expectation of others for when to highlight the power of social norms: prejudice and energy imitation is appropriate, and when it is not. use. The prejudices that people report map almost perfectly onto what is socially appropriate, likewise, people adjust their A social norm is an expectation about appropriate behav- energy use to be more in line with their neighbors. We review ior that occurs in a group context. Sherif and Sherif [8] say new approaches examining the effects of norms stemming that social norms are ‘formed in group situations and from multiple groups, and utilizing normative referents to shift subsequently serve as standards for the individual’s per- behaviors in social networks. Though the focus of less research ception and judgment when he [sic] is not in the group in recent years, our review highlights the fundamental influence situation. The individual’s major social attitudes are of social norms on social behavior. formed in relation to group norms (pp. 202–203).’ Social norms, or group norms, are ‘regularities in attitudes and Address behavior that characterize a social group and differentiate Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, it from other social groups’ [9 ] (p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Polarization of Reality †
    AEA Papers and Proceedings 2020, 110: 324–328 https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20201072 The Polarization of Reality † By Alberto Alesina, Armando Miano, and Stefanie Stantcheva* Evidence is growing that Americans are voters have been illustrated in the political sci- polarized not only in their views on policy issues ence literature. Bartels 2002 shows that party and attitudes toward government and society identification shapes (perception) of economic but also in their perceptions of the same factual indicators that can be seen as the government’s reality. In this paper, we conceptualize how to “performance indicators” e.g., unemployment think about the polarization of reality and review or inflation , with Republicans( being more opti- recent papers that show that Republicans and mistic than) Democrats on economic variables Democrats as well as Trump and non-Trump during the Reagan presidency.1 Similar results voters since (2016 view the same reality through about the importance of partisan assessment a different lens. Perhaps) as a result, they hold of the government’s performance in shaping different views about policies and what should perceptions of economic indicators is found in be done to address different economic and social Conover, Feldman, and Knight 1987 . More issues. recently, Jerit and Barabas 2012( shows) that The direction of causality is unclear. On the people perceive the same reality( in a) way consis- one hand, individuals could select into political tent with their political views and that learning affiliations on the basis of their perceptions of is selective: partisans have higher knowledge reality. On the other hand, political affiliation for facts that corroborate their world views and affects the information one receives, the groups lower knowledge of facts that challenge them.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments Vs. Explanations
    Arguments vs. Explanations Arguments and explanations share a lot of common features. In fact, it can be hard to tell the difference between them if you look just at the structure. Sometimes, the exact same structure can function as an argument or as an explanation depending on the context. At the same time, arguments are very different in terms of what they try to accomplish. Explaining and arguing are very different activities even though they use the same types of structures. In a similar vein, building something and taking it apart are two very different activities, but we typically use the same tools for both. Arguments and explanations both have a single sentence as their primary focus. In an argument, we call that sentence the “conclusion”, it’s what’s being argued for. In an explanation, that sentence is called the “explanandum”, it’s what’s being explained. All of the other sentences in an argument or explanation are focused on the conclusion or explanandum. In an argument, these other sentences are called “premises” and they provide basic reasons for thinking that the conclusion is true. In an explanation, these other sentences are called the “explanans” and provide information about how or why the explanandum is true. So in both cases we have a bunch of sentences all focused on one single sentence. That’s why it’s easy to confuse arguments and explanations, they have a similar structure. Premises/Explanans Conclusion/Explanandum What is an argument? An argument is an attempt to provide support for a claim. One useful way of thinking about this is that an argument is, at least potentially, something that could be used to persuade someone about the truth of the argument’s conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Form and Explanation
    Form and Explanation Jonathan Kramnick and Anahid Nersessian What does form explain? More often than not, when it comes to liter- ary criticism, form explains everything. Where form refers “to elements of a verbal composition,” including “rhythm, meter, structure, diction, imagery,” it distinguishes ordinary from figurative utterance and thereby defines the literary per se.1 Where form refers to the disposition of those elements such that the work of which they are a part mimes a “symbolic resolution to a concrete historical situation,” it distinguishes real from vir- tual phenomena and thereby defines the task of criticism as their ongoing adjudication.2 Both forensic and exculpatory in their promise, form’s ex- planations have been applied to circumstances widely disparate in scale, character, and significance. This is nothing new, but a recent flurry of de- bates identifying new varieties of form has thrown the unruliness of its application into relief. Taken together, they suggest that to give an account of form is to contribute to the work of making sense of linguistic meaning, aesthetic production, class struggle, objecthood, crises in the humanities and of the planet, how we read, why we read, and what’s wrong with these queries of how and why. In this context, form explains what we cannot: what’s the point of us at all? Contemporary partisans of form maintain that their high opinion of its exegetical power is at once something new in the field and the field’s 1. René Wellek, “Concepts of Form and Structure in Twentieth-Century Criticism,” Concepts of Criticism (New Haven, Conn., 1963), p.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Magic That Can Set You Free': the Ideology of Folk and the Myth of the Rock Community
    The magic that can set you free': the ideology of folk and the myth of the rock community by SIMON FRITH Rock, the saying goes, is 'the folk music of our time'. Not from a sociological point of view. If 'folk' describes pre-capitalist modes of music production, rock is, without a doubt, a mass-produced, mass- consumed, commodity. The rock-folk argument, indeed, is not about how music is made, but about how it works: rock is taken to express (or reflect) a way of life; rock is used by its listeners as a folk music - it articulates communal values, comments on shared social problems. The argument, in other words, is about subcultures rather than music- making; the question of how music comes to represent its listeners is begged. (I develop these arguments further in Frith 1978, pp. 191-202, and, with particular reference to punk rock, in Frith 1980.) In this article I am not going to answer this question either. My concern is not whether rock is or is not a folk music, but is with the effects of a particular account of popular culture - the ideology of folk - on rock's interpretation of itself. For the rock ideologues of the 1960s - musicians, critics and fans alike - rock 'n' roll's status as a folk music was what differentiated it from routine pop; it was as a folk music that rock could claim a distinctive political and artistic edge. The argument was made, for example, by Jon Landau in his influential role as reviews editor and house theorist of Rolling Stone.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Philosophical Analysis?
    JEFFREY C. KING WHAT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS? (Received 24 January 1996) It is common for philosophers to offer philosophical accounts or analyses, as they are sometimes called, of knowledge, autonomy, representation, (moral) goodness, reference, and even modesty.1 These philosophical analyses raise deep questions. What is it that is being analyzed (i.e. what sorts of things are the objects of analysis)? What sort of thing is the analysis itself (a proposition? sentence?)? Under what conditions is an analysis correct? How can a correct analysis be informative? How, if at all, does the production of philo- sophical analyses differ from what scientists do? The purpose of the present paper is to provide answers to these questions. The traditional answers to the ®rst and last of these questions are that concepts are the objects of philosophical analysis and that philo- sophical analyses differ from the results of scienti®c investigation in being conceptual analyses. Like many philosophers I am suspicious of the notions of concept and conceptual analysis as traditionally understood. Though the critique of these notions is beyond the scope of the present work, the answers I shall give to the questions raised above shall not invoke concepts (understood as things distinct from properties).2 I count it as a virtue of my account that it is able to provide answers to the questions raised above without an appeal to concepts. And to the extent that it has been felt that concepts are needed to answer these questions, the present account weakens the case for positing concepts. Before addressing these questions, however, we shall make the simplifying assumption that analyses are given in a ªcanonical formº.
    [Show full text]
  • Generics Analysis Canberra Plan.Pdf
    Philosophical Perspectives, 26, Philosophy of Mind, 2012 CONCEPTS, ANALYSIS, GENERICS AND THE CANBERRA PLAN1 Mark Johnston Princeton University Sarah-Jane Leslie2 Princeton University My objection to meanings in the theory of meaning is not that they are abstract or that their identity conditions are obscure, but that they have no demonstrated use.3 —Donald Davidson “Truth and Meaning” From time to time it is said that defenders of conceptual analysis would do well to peruse the best empirically supported psychological theories of concepts, and then tailor their notions of conceptual analysis to those theories of what concepts are.4 As against this, there is an observation — traceable at least as far back to Gottlob Frege’s attack on psychologism in “The Thought” — that might well discourage philosophers from spending a week or two with the empirical psychological literature. The psychological literature is fundamentally concerned with mental representations, with the mental processes of using these in classification, characterization and inference, and with the sub-personal bases of these processes. The problem is that for many philosophers, concepts could not be mental items. (Jerry Fodor is a notable exception, we discuss him below.) We would like to set out this difference of focus in some detail and then propose a sort of translation manual, or at least a crucial translational hint, one which helps in moving between philosophical and psychological treatments of concepts. Then we will consider just how, given the translation, the relevant
    [Show full text]
  • The Ontic Account of Scientific Explanation
    Chapter 2 The Ontic Account of Scientific Explanation Carl F. Craver Abstract According to one large family of views, scientific explanations explain a phenomenon (such as an event or a regularity) by subsuming it under a general representation, model, prototype, or schema (see Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2005). Explanation: A mechanist alternative. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 421–441; Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press; Darden (2006); Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of scientific explanation (pp. 331– 496). New York: Free Press; Kitcher (1989); Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25). My concern is with the minimal suggestion that an adequate philosophical theory of scientific explanation can limit its attention to the format or structure with which theories are represented. The representational subsumption view is a plausible hypothesis about the psychology of understanding. It is also a plausible claim about how scientists present their knowledge to the world. However, one cannot address the central questions for a philosophical theory of scientific explanation without turning one’s attention from the structure of representations to the basic commitments about the worldly structures that plausibly count as explanatory. A philosophical theory of scientific explanation should achieve two goals. The first is explanatory demarcation. It should show how explanation relates with other scientific achievements, such as control, description, measurement, prediction, and taxonomy. The second is explanatory normativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis - Identify Assumptions, Reasons and Claims, and Examine How They Interact in the Formation of Arguments
    Analysis - identify assumptions, reasons and claims, and examine how they interact in the formation of arguments. Individuals use analytics to gather information from charts, graphs, diagrams, spoken language and documents. People with strong analytical skills attend to patterns and to details. They identify the elements of a situation and determine how those parts interact. Strong interpretations skills can support high quality analysis by providing insights into the significance of what a person is saying or what something means. Inference - draw conclusions from reasons and evidence. Inference is used when someone offers thoughtful suggestions and hypothesis. Inference skills indicate the necessary or the very probable consequences of a given set of facts and conditions. Conclusions, hypotheses, recommendations or decisions that are based on faulty analysis, misinformation, bad data or biased evaluations can turn out to be mistaken, even if they have reached using excellent inference skills. Evaluative - assess the credibility of sources of information and the claims they make, and determine the strength and weakness or arguments. Applying evaluation skills can judge the quality of analysis, interpretations, explanations, inferences, options, opinions, beliefs, ideas, proposals, and decisions. Strong explanation skills can support high quality evaluation by providing evidence, reasons, methods, criteria, or assumptions behind the claims made and the conclusions reached. Deduction - decision making in precisely defined contexts where rules, operating conditions, core beliefs, values, policies, principles, procedures and terminology completely determine the outcome. Deductive reasoning moves with exacting precision from the assumed truth of a set of beliefs to a conclusion which cannot be false if those beliefs are untrue. Deductive validity is rigorously logical and clear-cut.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideology: the Challenge for Civic Literacy Educators by James A
    Volume 1, Issue 1 http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/civiclit/index July 2014 Ideology: The Challenge for Civic Literacy Educators By James A. Duplass ABSTRACT: Commitment to open-mindedness, critical thinking, liberty, and social justice are proposed as four pillars of a democratic ideology. The highly charged and polarized discourse between left and right po- litical ideology among the media, politicians, educators, and public has intensified the challenge placed on social studies educators to transmit these goals to their students. A rendition of the philosophical trajectory of the ideas of liberty, social justice, and justice are provided and married with concepts from the philosophical foundations of American education, social studies education goals and strategies, and contemporary human- istic philosophy so as to articulate a new case that transmission of a democratic ideology is at the core of social studies education. The proposition is made that teaching social studies is unique because the development of an ideology requires teachers’ attention to values, virtues formation, and the liberation of the individual. Keywords: Ideology, critical thinking, liberty, social justice, justice The purpose of this essay is to explore the largely unexamined idea of a democratic ideology as an inherent goal of social studies education. The traditional meaning of competency and literacy established by many disciplines including social studies education (Duplass, 2006) do not fully convey the unique mission of social studies education to pass on an ideology - belief system - to successive generations. The formation of values (Apple, 2004; Duplass, 2008; McCarthy, 1994), the use of critical thinking (Dewey, 1890/1969), and July 2014 Ideology: The Challenge for Civic Literacy Educators 1 the goal of passing on democratic traditions (Dewey, 1939/1976; National Council for Social Studies, 2008) serve as an intersection for the formation of a democratic ideology, although such a term is seldom found in the social studies literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation
    Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation David J. Chalmers and Frank Jackson Philosophy Program Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University 1 Introduction Is conceptual analysis required for reductive explanation? If there is no a priori entailment from microphysical truths to phenomenal truths, does reductive explanation of the phenomenal fail? We say yes (Chalmers 1996; Jackson 1994, 1998). Ned Block and Robert Stalnaker say no (Block and Stalnaker 1999). A number of issues can be distinguished: (1) Is there an a priori entailment from microphysical truths to ordinary macroscopic truths? (2) If there is no a priori entailment from microphysical truths to phenomenal truths, does reductive explanation of the phenomenal fail? (3) If there is no a priori entailment from microphysical truths to phenomenal truths, is physicalism about the phenomenal false? (4) Is there an a priori entailment from microphysical truths to phenomenal truths? We hold that the first three questions should be answered positively (with some qualifications to be outlined). Block and Stalnaker hold that the first three questions should be answered negatively. Their central strategy is to argue for a negative answer to the first question, and to use this conclusion to argue for a negative answer to the second and third questions. They argue that truths about water and about life, for example, are not entailed a priori by microphysical truths, but that this is no bar to the reductive explanation and physical constitution of water and of life. In this paper, we will address Block and Stalnaker’s arguments for a negative answer to the first three questions, while remaining neutral on the fourth.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Spirituality?
    fact sheets What is spirituality? Recognising the difference between spirituality and religion can be a great way to begin to understand what spirituality means to different people. There are many types of spirituality that people sometimes base their beliefs around and also many different reasons people practice spirituality. Spirituality is something that’s often debated and commonly misunderstood. Many people confuse spirituality with religion and so bring pre–existing beliefs about the impact of religion to discussions about spirituality. Though all religions emphasise spirituality as being an important part of faith, it’s possible to be ‘spiritual’ without necessarily being a part of an organised religious community. This might help if... What’s the difference between religion and › You’re looking for spirituality? information on spirituality Spirituality and religion can be hard to tell apart but there are some pretty defined differences between the two. › You want to know Religion is a specific set of organised beliefs and practices, usually shared the difference between by a community or group. spirituality and religion Spirituality is more of an individual practice and has to do with having a › You’d like to become a sense of peace and purpose. It also relates to the process of developing more spiritual person beliefs around the meaning of life and connection with others. One way that might help you to understand the relationship between Take action... spirituality and religion is imagine a game of football. The rules, referees, other players, and field markings help guide you as you play the game in › Learn more about a similar way that religion might guide you to find your spirituality.
    [Show full text]