Rationality in Inquiry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Umeå Studies in Philosophy 1 Rationality in Inquiry On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Jonas Nilsson Rationality in Inquiry On the RevisabUity of Cognitive Standards Jonas Nilsson Umeå 2000 Institutionen för filosofi och lingvistik Umeå universitet 901 87 Umeå Akademisk avhandling som med vederbörligt tillstånd av rektorsämbetet vid Umeå universitet för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen offentligen försvaras i hörsal F, humanisthuset lördagen den 20 januari 2001, kl. 10.15 ISBN 91-7191-947-3 ISSN 1650-1748 Jonas Nilsson Rationality in Inquiry: On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University Monograph 2000 Umeå Studies in Philosophy 1 ISSN 1650-1748 ISBN 91-7191-947-3 Distributed by Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden ABSTRACT The topic of this study is to what extent standards of rational inquiry can be rationally criticized and revised. It is argued that it is rational to treat all such standards as open to criticism and revision. Arguments to the effect that we are fallible with regard to all standards of rational inquiry are presented. Standards cannot be ultimately justified and with certainty established either as adequate or as inescapable presuppositions. Apel's attempt to give ultimate justifications of certain moral and logical rules is examined and criticized. Special attention is given to our fallibility with regard to logical inference rules. The idea that certain logical rules cannot be put into question because any critical argument presupposes them is criticized. It has been claimed that there must be some basic standards which are such that they cannot be rationally evaluated and hence are rationally unrevisable. This is called "the unrevisability thesis". Related to this thesis is the normative policy according to which rationality requires that some standards be treated as unrevisable, the unrevisability policy. Two arguments that have been used to defend the unrevisability thesis and policy are examined and criticized. The conclusion is that we are not forced to accept either the thesis or the policy. The negation of the unrevisability policy is the revisability policy, according to which it is rational to treat all standards as open to rational criticism and revision. Objections that have been directed against the revisability policy are discussed and criticized. According to the objections, the revisability policy leads to rationality relativism. These objections are refuted, and it is argued that it is, on the contrary, rational to adopt the revisability policy and treat all standards of rational inquiry as criticizable and revisable. It is proposed that the rational change of standards should be viewed as a bootstrap process. General features of a bootstrap view of rational change of standards are presented, and it is argued that it is impossible to formulate a real theory of bootstrapping. Two models of standard change are presented and discussed: Laudan's reticulated model of scientific rationality and Briskman's bootstrap theory. It is claimed that in spite of defects and limitations, these models contribute to a richer understanding of bootstrapping. The fallibility and revisability of standards of rational inquiry have consequences for how the normativity of rationality should be understood. The book ends with an account of how the rationality of cognitive actions is related to the idea of the adequacy of standards. A distinction between absolute and standard-relative rationality is made, and it is argued that what an inquiring agent rationally ought to do coincides with what it is standard-relatively rational for him to do. It is shown that this view of rationality of inquiry is nevertheless inconsistent with rationality relativism, and that it is compatible with an objectivistic view of rationality. Keywords: Rationality, fallibilism, revisability, ultimate justification, relativism, bootstrap rationality, standards, cognitive goals, Laudan, Briskman, Worrall, Hauptli, Apel. Rationality in Inquiry On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Umeå Studies in Philosophy 1 Rationality in Inquiry On the Revisability of Cognitive Standards Jonas Nilsson Umeå 2000 © Jonas Nilsson Series editors: Gunnar Andersson, Ingvar Johansson and Sten Lindström Department of Philosophy and Linguistics Umeå University SE-901 87 Umeå ISSN 1650-1748 ISBN 91-7191-947-3 Printed in Sweden by Eländers Gotab, Stockholm, 2000 Distributor: Department of Philosophy and Linguistics, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden. Till Mamma och Pappa ABSTRACT The topic of this study is to what extent standards of rational inquiry can be rationally criticized and revised. It is argued that it is rational to treat all such standards as open to criticism and revision. Arguments to the effect that we are fallible with regard to all standards of rational inquiry are presented. Standards cannot be ultimately justified and with certainty established either as adequate or as inescapable presuppositions. Apel's attempt to give ultimate justifications of certain moral and logical rules is examined and criticized. Special attention is given to our fallibility with regard to logical inference rules. The idea that certain logical rules cannot be put into question because any critical argument presupposes them is criticized. It has been claimed that there must be some basic standards which are such that they cannot be rationally evaluated and hence are rationally unrevisable. This is called "the unrevisability thesis". Related to this thesis is the normative policy according to which rationality requires that some standards be treated as unrevisable, the unrevisability policy. Two arguments that have been used to defend the unrevisability thesis and policy are examined and criticized. The conclusion is that we are not forced to accept either the thesis or the policy. The negation of the unrevisability policy is the revisability policy, according to which it is rational to treat all standards as open to rational criticism and revision. Objections that have been directed against the revisability policy are discussed and criticized. According to the objections, the revisability policy leads to rationality relativism. These objections are refuted, and it is argued that it is, on the contrary, rational to adopt the revisability policy and treat all standards of rational inquiry as criticizable and revisable. It is proposed that the rational change of standards should be viewed as a bootstrap process. General features of a bootstrap view of rational change of standards are presented, and it is argued that it is impossible to formulate a real theory of bootstrapping. Two models of standard change are presented and discussed: Laudan's reticulated model of scientific rationality and Briskman's bootstrap theory. It is claimed that in spite of defects and limitations, these models contribute to a richer understanding of bootstrapping. The fallibility and revisability of standards of rational inquiry have consequences for how the normativity of rationality should be understood. The book ends with an account of how the rationality of cognitive actions is related to the idea of the adequacy of standards. A distinction between absolute and standard-relative rationality is made, and it is argued that what an inquiring agent rationally ought to do coincides with what it is standard-relatively rational for him to do. It is shown that this view of rationality of inquiry is nevertheless inconsistent with rationality relativism, and that it is compatible with an objectivistic view of rationality. Keywords: Rationality, fallibilism, revisability, ultimate justification, relativism, bootstrap rationality, standards, cognitive goals, Laudan, Briskman, Worrall, Hauptli, Apel. vii Acknowledgements First I want to thank my supervisor Ingvar Johansson. He has been constantly supportive and generous towards me. The time and energy he has devoted to me and to my work, go far beyond what duty requires of a supervisor. His careful reading of everything I have written during these years, and his innumerable criticisms and suggestions, have been invaluable. Two other Umeå philosophers have contributed in an especially important way, both to the writing of this dissertation and to my philosophical development in general. Gunnar Andersson has read and commented on what I have written, and I have learnt much from our discussions of philosophy of science and theories of rationality. Sten Lindström has also read and commented on my writings. Discussions with Sten have opened my eyes to many complications and difficulties that I would not have noticed otherwise, and they have greatly improved my understanding of the problems discussed in this work. All of the chapters in this dissertation have been presented at the Friday seminar at the Philosophy department in Umeå. The discussions there have resulted in many improvements, and I want to thank all the participants at those seminars. In particular, I wish to thank Hildur Kalman, Per Nilsson, Peter Nilsson, Bertil Strömberg and Pär Sundström, who have all generously commented on different versions of the chapters presented here. Our department secretary Ann-Katrin Minnhagen has helped me with many practical things, especially during the final stages of preparation for publication. For that I thank her. I spent the autumn semester 1998 at the Philosophy department at York University in Toronto. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Ian C. Jarvie, who invited me to York and supervised me while I was there. He generously provided me with an office of my own, and made many arrangements to make my stay there philosophically fruitful as well as pleasant. It was during that time I wrote the first drafts of most of the chapters of this dissertation, and our discussions together was a great help to me in coming to realize what it was I wanted to do and how I should do it. viii I have had financial support for this work from the Philosophy department in Umeå, the Faculty of Humanities at Umeå University, and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. I also received a grant from Kempefonden at an early stage of my graduate studies.