Pragmatism

[hernan]

You're not seeing or not addressing the difference between saying, "1+1=2" and saying, "well, I won't say that I know 1+1=2 but it is "useful" to say that 1+1=2, at least if I have wooden blocks in front of me and can arrange them to demonstrate this.

But you are not treating the fundamental Pragmatic principle seriously. The Pragmatist says he "knows" X when the believing X to be true leads to useful results.

(I'm not suggesting that empiricism, e.g. playing with wooden blocks, is always the best method for doing math but rather that it is sufficient and might in some circumstances actually be useful and insightful. People often use plots to get a better understanding of raw data or equations, for example. And I note still that we are still arguing over why we should agree on something which is a rather unpragmatic argument.)

[Inspector]

But you are not treating the fundamental Pragmatic principle seriously. The Pragmatist says he "knows" X when the believing X to be true leads to useful results.

But just look at that for a second. Don't you see what's wrong with that approach? Don't you see how that is fundamentally denying reality? I mean, you even put "knows" in scare quotes. It takes a simple statement like "reality exists" and refuses to say it, substituting instead: "well, if it seems to lead to useful results, then I will act as if reality exists but I am by no means prepared to say it exists." It dances all around the point, going out of its way to avoid making a statement of fact. And yet somehow you think that it is not using Radical Empiricism?

The concept "useful" is dependent on the antecedent concept of "reality." To even ask questions of "usefulness" requires the existence of a whole chain of concepts (i.e. useful to whom, for what?), all of which implicitly depend on the existence of, well, existence. If it didn't exist, there would be noone to ask the question of "usefulness." Hell, there wouldn't even be "usefulness." There wouldn't even be "be."

To even try to ask the question is to engage massively in the fallacy of the stolen concept. Again, do you know what that means?

I think maybe you haven't seen Objectivist epistemology yet. When you do, you will see how fundamentally different it is from Pragmatism, and why this matters. I suggest Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

And I note still that we are still arguing over why we should agree on something which is a rather unpragmatic argument.

Kendall just did a good job of explaining why this matters. And of course it is un-Pragmatic; we disagree with Pragmatism. But it is a rather Objectivist argument.

Edited March 18, 2007 by Inspector

[hernan]

But just look at that for a second. Don't you see what's wrong with that approach? Don't you see how that is fundamentally denying reality? I mean, you even put "knows" in scare quotes. It takes a simple statement like "reality exists" and refuses to say it, substituting instead: "well, if it seems to lead to useful results, then I will act as if reality exists but I am by no means prepared to say it exists." It dances all around the point, going out of its way to avoid making a statement of fact. And yet somehow you think that it is not using Radical Empiricism?

Sorry, but I don't agree. On the contrary, it is a statement of actual confidence in reality, that reality will reveal itself through experience (and not just mine but all who have come before me). Radical Empiricism, on the other hand, is a cynical view of reality. The difference is quite clear to me.

The concept "useful" is dependent on the antecedent concept of "reality." To even ask questions of "usefulness" requires the existence of a whole chain of concepts (i.e. useful to whom, for what?), all of which implicitly depend on the existence of, well, existence.

What it doesn't require, though, is full knowledge of reality. And that is the key. A baby can use Pragmatism to discover the world.

I think maybe you haven't seen Objectivist epistemology yet. When you do, you will see how fundamentally different it is from Pragmatism, and why this matters. I suggest Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Kendall just did a good job of explaining why this matters. And of course it is un-Pragmatic; we disagree with Pragmatism. But it is a rather Objectivist argument.

I've read a few Rand books and flipped through OPAR. I do find much of value but I don't take it whole and prefer Pragmatism (the non-Radical Empricism version).

Yes, the problem is that you are seeking an Objectivist justification of Pragmatism. But I can only offer a Pragmatic justification of Pragmatism. Knowing by judging usefulness of believing is Pragmatic.

[Inspector]

Sorry, but I don't agree. On the contrary, it is a statement of actual confidence in reality

If it's so confident, why don't you just say "reality exists?"

What it doesn't require...

First, you didn't really answer me. "Useful" depends on the concept of existence, as well as many others. How do you propose to judge it by something it is hierarchically primary to?

Second,

A baby can use Pragmatism to discover the world

Yes, and when you want to graduate beyond the level of a baby, you may want to consider a philosophy superior to pragmatism. That's not a cheap shot: I mean it. The epistemology of pragmatism is stunted at the infant level. Unprincipled experimentation is an infant's way of dealing with the world.

Knowing by judging usefulness of believing is Pragmatic.

And knowing by judging correspondence to reality is Objectivism. Which would you say is more confident of an objective, fully knowable reality? Of the fact that existence exists, A is A, and consciousness is conscious? And which leaves the door wide open for Radical Empiricism?

Edited March 18, 2007 by Inspector

[hernan]

If it's so confident, why don't you just say "reality exists?"

I thought I had. We were arguing over why, not whether.

I don't know why I didn't think of this before but here is a simple, clear test for distinguishing between Pragmatism and Radical Empiricism:

You (I think it was you) mentioned earlier that there existed a logical proof that reality is real. Now I have no doubt that reality is real and franky I have a hard time trying to imagine an unreal reality (but then I have trouble trying to imagine quantum physics too) but suppose I took the time to investigate your claim and came to agree with you that the claim that reality is real belongs in the mathematics/logic bucket of things known with logical certainty. What would it mean to me? Nothing. I would go merrily along as a Pragmatist with that infintesimally slight adjustment in my thinking.

On the other hand, if you led a Radical Empiricist by the nose to the proof and he came to agree with it then his worldview would be shattered. He could no longer count himself as a Radical Empiricist.

In fact, let me offer to accept, on faith, at least for the remainder of this thread, your claim that reality is real is logically provable.

First, you didn't really answer me. "Useful" depends on the concept of existence, as well as many others.

I'm not sure what you mean here, even a Radical Empiricist has a concept of existence, he just thinks its a concept like unicorns, one of imagination. (I guess, I really don't know much about Radical Empiricism beyond what I found when I searched on your James quote.)

And knowing by judging correspondence to reality is Objectivism.

Again, not quite sure what you mean. If I had full knowledge of reality then I could compare claims to it and determine which were true. But, alas, I'm not omnicient.

Edited March 18, 2007 by hernan

[hunterrose]

A pragmatic dictator is not concerned (and ought not be concerned according to Pragmatism?) with whether his means will lead to his disaster until the consequences actually play out, until his evil actually becomes [detrimentally] consequential.

This is again a straw man. Pragmatists are concerned with future consequences of choices.

So, if I understand you, something that might coincide with a choice is regarded as a "future consequence" of that choice?

You are not treating the fundamental Pragmatic principle seriously. The Pragmatist says he "knows" X when the believing X to be true leads to useful results.

It is not virtuous to prey on your friends. It is virtuous to prey on your enemies.

But do you, the pragmatist, know that? What useful results does not preying on friends lead to?

[hernan]

So, if I understand you, something that might coincide with a choice is regarded as a "future consequence" of that choice?

If you want to get precise, there are well known scientific techniques for distinguishing between correlation and causation. Is this really an issue here?

But do you, the pragmatist, know that? What useful results does not preying on friends lead to?

That's pretty simple: the shared fruits of cooperation (e.g. employees in a company or soldiers in an army).

[Cogito]

I dont have any Rand quotes handy but you can scan back in this thread to find people claiming this of Objectivism.

My original position was that Objectivism and Pragmatism were compatible. But I was told that I was wrong because Pragmatists were concerned only with consequences and not with means.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that you can claim Objectivists are concerned with only means and not consequences, which is what you were claiming with your previous statement.

[Cogito]

the mathematics/logic bucket of things known with logical certainty.

Why are only deductions (in this case rationalistic ones, i.e. those which are disconnected from reality) "logically certain"? Why is math any better than science? If math is based on principles induced from reality(and it is), then how is it any more certain than science which is also based on principles induced from reality? If math is not based on principles induced from reality, then what does it mean for it to be true (true meaning "in accordance with the facts of reality)? Why do people afford math and "pure" logic(which seems to always mean "logic divorced from reality", a blatant contradiction) a higher, more certain status?

[Inspector]

I thought I had. We were arguing over why, not whether.

The "why" in this case dictates the "whether," since saying that it is useful to believe in something does not say that it exists: just that you choose to believe in it (for the moment). What I want to hear is that it exists: as an absolute. Period. No dancing around the point. No "it is a useful thing to..." Just: Existence exists.

You (I think it was you) mentioned earlier that there existed a logical proof that reality is real.

I'm not sure what you refer to, but you can't "prove" that reality is real, since "proof" is a concept that depends on reality. You can validate that reality is real by looking around and inducing it.

suppose I took the time to investigate your claim and came to agree with you that the claim that reality is real belongs in the mathematics/logic bucket of things known with logical certainty.

First, what investigation do you need?

<waves hand around self>

See that? Reality. Real.

Second, are you admitting that you do not place the existence of existence in the category of things you are certain of?

Again, not quite sure what you mean. If I had full knowledge of reality then I could compare claims to it and determine which were true. But, alas, I'm not omnicient.

Certainty does not require omniscience. That is a question of epistemology. And what we've been discussing has been metaphysics and epistemology. Would you agree?

You seem to treat these subjects as inconsequential, but they are the most important ones in philosophy, since all other subjects depend on the answers you give here. Your first mistake is in not taking them seriously. I think you might change your mind if you could see how metaphysical and epistemological choices are completely critical to subsequent choices.

Again, I have to recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[hernan]

I'm not sure what you refer to, but you can't "prove" that reality is real, since "proof" is a concept that depends on reality. You can validate that reality is real by looking around and inducing it.

Well, then, the difference is even slighter and at this point I'm even less clear what you are complaining about.

First, what investigation do you need?

Since you are not claiming a proof then this is moot.

You seem to treat these subjects as inconsequential, but they are the most important ones in philosophy, since all other subjects depend on the answers you give here.

It might help if you could show some consequences. That would catch the attention of a Pragmatist.

[hernan]

Yes, but this doesn't mean that you can claim Objectivists are concerned with only means and not consequences, which is what you were claiming with your previous statement.

I think this one was clarified for me above.

Why are only deductions (in this case rationalistic ones, i.e. those which are disconnected from reality) "logically certain"? Why is math any better than science?

Math is different from science in that it does not depend on empirical evidence. No mathematical theorem is subject to revision by new experience. It is useful to distinguish mathematical/logical deduction from scientific induction because the latter introduces additional opportunities for error above those in the former. Is that a controversial observation?

[Inspector]

Since you are not claiming a proof then this is moot.

I am claiming 100% certainty. Does that do it for you?

The "why" in this case dictates the "whether," since saying that it is useful to believe in something does not say that it exists: just that you choose to believe in it (for the moment). What I want to hear is that it exists: as an absolute. Period. No dancing around the point. No "it is a useful thing to..." Just: Existence exists.

Still waiting for this...

[y_feldblum]

Actual knowledge is absolutely certain. In other words, if you actually know something, then you don't just know it for 50% or 80% or 99.9% of the cases within the relevant context; you know it for 100%. (In fact, the claim that knowledge cannot be certain is itself uncertain, and so, for all you the claimant know, knowledge could very well be certain!)

If one upholds the certainty of knowledge, and if one has grasped the certainty of the principle of gravity (an element of knowledge), then one will be quite hesitant to jump off a cliff. However, if one denies the certainly of knowledge, and if one claims that the principle of gravity works only 99% of the time, one could not be certain of the figure 99% (it could very well be 2% for all he knows), and may very easily throw himself to his death (suppose an eccentric recluse offered him $100 M to try it and live). That is one small ethical difference (yes, ethics applies first to a person's own actions and then to his interactions with others) which the Objectivist epistemology has with any other philosophy, such as Pragmatism, which denies the certainty of knowledge.

[hunterrose]

What useful results does not preying on friends lead to?

That's pretty simple: the shared fruits of cooperation (e.g. employees in a company or soldiers in an army).

Simple? I actually would like to get precise here. You can get the useful result of cooperation and obtain the "useful" result of preying on friends as well, so long as you aren't caught in the act. Why would a pragmatist assume otherwise in saying that it is not virtuous to prey on friends?

So, if I understand you, something that might coincide with a choice is regarded as a "future consequence" of that choice?

There are well known scientific techniques for distinguishing between correlation and causation. Is this really an issue here?

You didn't answer the question. But I suppose we can get to that by and by.

To extend my point, suppose a bum asks you for $100. A future consequence is that this bum may be the only one on hand some day when you are in an emergency and decide to save you based on whether you gave him the $100.

For the sake of argument, I assume an infinite number of these future consequences will be consequential (if they end up happening) or caused as opposed to correlated (if you think it matters). My issue is how does the pragmatist process these infinite future consequences, given her finite amount of time.

[hernan]

I am claiming 100% certainty. Does that do it for you?

But I was happy to go along with that.

Let me see if I can summarize my position:

1) I have never experienced doubt that reality is real

2) I have no respect for those few (philosphers all, e.g. the Radical Empiricists) who have suggested that reality is not real (I doubt they believe it themselves)

3) I know of nobody reputable who is doing research into the realness of reality (people research open questions, not closed ones)

4) I find it imminently practical to believe that reality is real

The one thing I am short of is logical proof that reality is real. I thought you had suggested that a proof such existed but as I noted previously I can scarcely discern any difference between my above and a logical proof, were it to exist.

[hernan]

Actual knowledge is absolutely certain. In other words, if you actually know something, then you don't just know it for 50% or 80% or 99.9% of the cases within the relevant context; you know it for 100%.

So we're back to the supposed difference between 99.99999999% certainty and 100% certainty?

If one upholds the certainty of knowledge, and if one has grasped the certainty of the principle of gravity (an element of knowledge), then one will be quite hesitant to jump off a cliff. However, if one denies the certainly of knowledge, and if one claims that the principle of gravity works only 99% of the time, one could not be certain of the figure 99% (it could very well be 2% for all he knows), and may very easily throw himself to his death (suppose an eccentric recluse offered him $100 M to try it and live). That is one small ethical difference (yes, ethics applies first to a person's own actions and then to his interactions with others) which the Objectivist epistemology has with any other philosophy, such as Pragmatism, which denies the certainty of knowledge.

Here you seem to be back to the skeptic leading the Pragmatist to nihilism again. I doubt you will find any Pragmatists jumping off cliffs in a spasm of doubt.

[hernan]

You can get the useful result of cooperation and obtain the "useful" result of preying on friends as well, so long as you aren't caught in the act. Why would a pragmatist assume otherwise in saying that it is not virtuous to prey on friends?

Sure, if you are willing to accept the risk. But one way to define "friend" is that group of others whose cooperation you value above the value of cheating and risking getting caught. (Just visualize the computation of expected values.) Note that getting caught cheatig friends endangers not only your relationship with that friend but with others as well. This brings us to an issue that is somewhat askew of Objectivism: irrational attachment. Another way to define "friend" is that group of others you are willing to bind yourself to emotionally (i.e. irrationally).

To extend my point, suppose a bum asks you for $100. A future consequence is that this bum may be the only one on hand some day when you are in an emergency and decide to save you based on whether you gave him the $100. For the sake of argument, I assume an infinite number of these future consequences will be consequential (if they end up happening) or caused as opposed to correlated (if you think it matters). My issue is how does the pragmatist process these infinite future consequences, given her finite amount of time.

Time is indeed an essential concept in this. This is, if I recall, the idea that Pragmatism borrowed from Hagel.

Let me digress with another time problem: There are situations in which one must rely not on reason, because there is no time to think, but on pure gut, lower animal reaction (see e.g. the Gift of Fear). People who must deal with these situations train beforehand to shorten their decision process (e.g. "muscle training").

At the other extreme, we have the example of science which is also time bound. Will there ever be a final theory of Physics? I doubt it. Instead humanity continually upgrades and refines its knowledge.

Between these two we find everyday problem such as you cite. Some of these can be handled by simple heuristics (give or not give) which may come from a variety of sources (reflection, religion, scientific studies, etc.).

The other factor that goes along with time is expected value. What is the expected value of getting that $100 decision right vs. wrong? The higher the expected value the more time we are willing to invest in coming up with the right answer.

In the actual example, while it makes for great stories, I would estimage that the probability of receiving help from a bum that you gave $100 is virtually, certainly less than $100. But the probability of avoiding trouble might well be greater than $0.25. So flip him a quarter.

[SkyTrooper]

The one thing I am short of is logical proof that reality is real. I thought you had suggested that a proof such existed but as I noted previously I can scarcely discern any difference between my above and a logical proof, were it to exist.

Existence is an axiom, so does not require a "proof" for you to be 100% certain of it. An axiom is a "self evident truth that requires no proof" (there are only three axioms). Proof is a derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms.

Any attempt to disprove reality would require the use of the three axioms: existence (reality exists), consciousness (I am aware of it), and identity (A is A, existents have a specific nature). This is why Objectivists have said they are 100% certain that reality exists, and not merely that they accept the fact because it is useful to believe it.

[hernan]

Any attempt to disprove reality would require the use of the three axioms: existence (reality exists), consciousness (I am aware of it), and identity (A is A, existents have a specific nature). This is why Objectivists have said they are 100% certain that reality exists, and not merely that they accept the fact because it is useful to believe it.

So is there a logical proof somewhere that all proofs that reality is not real entail the assumption that reality is real? If so, that would be a logical proof that reality is real.

[mrocktor]

So is there a logical proof somewhere that all proofs that reality is not real entail the assumption that reality is real? If so, that would be a logical proof that reality is real.

• "Proof" is a very high level abstraction, it necessitates someone doing the "prooving" and some standard to prove by;
  
• In order for "someone" to prove something, "someone" must exist;
  
• Every "proof" that reality is not real includes the fact that there is someone doing the "prooving", therefore reality is real.
  

Hernan, you have been asked twice and I'll add a third time: do you know what the fallacy of the stolen concept is?

[hernan]

mrocktor, I've asked several times, and I'll ask again: what are the dire consequences of holding to my above position as opposed to yours? What's difference does it make? If I add "negation of reality implies acceptance of reality" to my list would that content you?

I can't think of any better illustration of why I keep Objectivism at arms length than this long running debate about the reality of reality. What a waste of time.

[SkyTrooper]

mrocktor, I've asked several times, and I'll ask again: what are the dire consequences of holding to my above position as opposed to yours? What's difference does it make? If I add "negation of reality implies acceptance of reality" to my list would that content you?

I can't think of any better illustration of why I keep Objectivism at arms length than this long running debate about the reality of reality. What a waste of time.

Honestly your ethical conclusions should be the same if you accept Objectivist conclusions in Metaphysics and Epistemology as your starting point. Objectivism begins at the beginning, with the only things that do not need proof: self-evident basic axioms.

Take for example the American founding fathers who took that ethics should be based on "Life, Liberty, (Property), and the Pursuit of Happiness." They got these ideas from the thinkers in the Enlightenment, who did not "prove" them. These are Objectivist conclusions in the field of ethics which are based on a massive amount of thought to arrive at starting only with "There is something that I am aware of" ('There is'=existence, 'something'=identity, 'that I am aware of'=reality), but the founding fathers took Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as "self-evident." Treating these ethical conclusions as "axioms" they managed to develop a complex and extremely effective political theory based on the idea of rights. Although the result is the same, this leads to inconsistencies and self-doubt in your philosophical system and opens your Political conclusions to easy attack when your unprovable self-evidences fall under attack. For this specific example, this attack came when Kant undermined the thought of Locke by attacking Reason and, ultimately, a concept of man that holds his life as important, and Reason as necessary for his life.

So to sum up: Yes you can accept that reality is real (and you should!) using your "pragmatic" approach that if you don't believe in reality you might as well just kill yourself and not bother with the whole thing, or you can learn how to refute everyone who has "proofs" as to why reality isn't real.

I'll try a graphical example to try to show why your conclusions in metaphysics matters:

Metaphysics(What is the nature of reality?)+Epistemology(How do I gain knowledge?)=>Ethics(How should I live?)=>Politics(How should society be organized?)

Also, as a note:there is no "debate" amongst objectivists of the reality of reality, you will not find a single objectivist that says "reality is real because it is useful to believe it"... any objectivist will say "I am 100% certain that existence exists. This is because to try to refute reality I would have to use concepts gained from reality." The only reason we discuss it so much with others is because there are so many intellectuals (like yourself) that are not 100% certain.

Edited March 19, 2007 by badkarma556

[hernan]

Although the result is the same, this leads to inconsistencies and self-doubt in your philosophical system and opens your Political conclusions to easy attack when your unprovable self-evidences fall under attack. For this specific example, this attack came when Kant undermined the thought of Locke by attacking Reason and, ultimately, a concept of man that holds his life as important, and Reason as necessary for his life. So to sum up: Yes you can accept that reality is real (and you should!) using your "pragmatic" approach that if you don't believe in reality you might as well just kill yourself and not bother with the whole thing, or you can learn how to refute everyone who has "proofs" as to why reality isn't real.

This seems to be a recurring theme that deserves closer scrutiny. It's almost as if Objectivism is a philosophy optimized for political argument. That would make sense given Rand's experience with Communism. I never pass up an opportunity to praise her courage, she was one of a handful who presented intellectual arguments for Capitalism when almost the whole world was read to toss it onto the scrapheap of history.

I sometimes wonder also if Objectivism is Alcoholics Anonymous for recovering Skeptics. There seems to be an irrational fear of uncertainty as if any chink in the armor opens to body up to attack. One might explain the ascendency of Socialism as a crisis of doubt but I think there are better explanations. A more important question is personal choices (it doesn't much matter what the political system is if everyone is a drug addict). Pragmatists I know are not struggling with drugs but with acheving success far beyond the norm.

Metaphysics(What is the nature of reality?)+Epistemology(How do I gain knowledge?)=>Ethics(How should I live?)=>Politics(How should society be organized?)

This is consistent with what I've read of Rand.

Also, as a note:there is no "debate" amongst objectivists of the reality of reality, you will not find a single objectivist that says "reality is real because it is useful to believe it"... any objectivist will say "I am 100% certain that existence exists. This is because to try to refute reality I would have to use concepts gained from reality." The only reason we discuss it so much with others is because there are so many intellectuals (like yourself) that are not 100% certain.

By "debate" I meant among ourselves. As I've noted countless times already, we agree that reality is real but apparently I'm not sufficiently certain about it though I can't see how.

[y_feldblum]

mrocktor, I've asked several times, and I'll ask again: what are the dire consequences of holding to my above position as opposed to yours? What's difference does it make? If I add "negation of reality implies acceptance of reality" to my list would that content you?

I can't think of any better illustration of why I keep Objectivism at arms length than this long running debate about the reality of reality. What a waste of time.

You deny that reality is real, and then deny that it matters. But the denial that reality is real is a contradiction, and upholding a specific contradiction means that you see no problem with upholding contradictions in general. If you uphold one contradiction, why should you not uphold another?

Here is an example of a contradiction which is routinely upheld: God exists, his will must be obeyed without question, and success comes from obeying his will. The Islamists today and the Church of the previous millenium recognize the contradiction between facts and faith, and then deny that the contradiction matters. Look how far this has gotten the Islamic world today, and how far it had gotten the Christian world in the Dark Ages.