Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T08:52:01.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Pragmatist Theory of Convergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Joseph Heath
Joseph Heath*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the defining characteristics of pragmatism over the years has been its commitment to the primacy of practical over theoretical rationality. This has often been motivated by doubts about the adequacy of the “representationalist paradigm” that has dominated philosophy of mind and epistemology in the modern period. Thus, many pragmatists have sought to replace the notion of representation with one or another explanatory concept derived from the analysis of action or behaviour. But this strategy has encountered persistent difficulties, and precisely where one might expect. Without some primitive notion of representation, it is difficult to provide an account of the conceptual content of our beliefs, the standards of correctness that govern our practices of inference, or the expectation of convergence that informs scientific inquiry. These difficulties, which pertain to the analysis of meaning, justification, and truth respectively, have done a lot to keep pragmatism more a set of promissory notes than a coherent philosophical program.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 24: Pragmatism , 1998 , pp. 149 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brandom, RobertMaking It Explicit (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Williams, MichaelUnnatural Doubts (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991)Google Scholar. On minimalism, see Horwich, PaulTruth (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990).Google Scholar

2 Especially Wright, CrispinTruth and Objectivity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

3 See Aumann, Robert J. “Agreeing to Disagree,” Annals of Statistics 4 (1976): 1236-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Some accommodation must be made for coarsening, which is considered permissible. Here I am treating input as “pre-processed,” so that everything that comes in is intended to be preserved.

5 For instance, according to proponents of this view, we may not be aware that we are projecting subjective responses onto the environment. See Mackie, J.L.Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (London: Penguin, 1997), 42Google Scholar, where he calls this the “pathetic fallacy.“

6 Wright, Truth and Objectivity, 92–93.Google Scholar

7 See Wright, Crispin “Introduction” to Realism, Meaning and Truth, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).Google Scholar

8 Pollner, MelvinMundane Reason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

9 Rasmusen, EricGames and Information (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989), 165.Google Scholar

10 Becker, GaryAccounting for Tastes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 24.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., 203-24.

12 “Language entry move” is an expression used by Wilfrid Sellars to designate an action through through which an agent comes to occupy a position in a language game that is not based on a transition from some other point in the game. See Sellars, “Some Reflections on Language Games,” in his Science, Perception and Reality (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), 329.Google Scholar See also Brandom, Making It Explicit, 221-22.Google Scholar

13 Wittgenstein, LudwigPhilosophical Investigations, trans. Ancombe, G.E.M. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1967), 117 [§381].Google Scholar

14 Peirce, C.S.Collected Works of Charles Sanders Pierce, vol. 5. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1934), 359.Google Scholar

15 Here I am following Savage, L.J.The Foundation of Statistics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1954).Google Scholar

16 Davidson, Donald “A New Basis for Decision Theory,” Theory and Decision 18 (1985): 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Natural events can still be included, by simply treating nature as one more “player,” the probability of whose moves are fixed in advance and common knowledge among the players.

18 See Hargreaves Heap, Shaun P. and Varoufakis, YanisGame Theory: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge, 1995), 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 For an overview, see Fudenberg, Drew and Tirole, JeanGame Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 11–14.Google Scholar

20 Harsanyi, John “Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players,” 3 parts, Management Science 14 (1967-68) 159-82,320-34,486-502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 This is admittedly informal, but conveys the basic idea underlying Aumann's argument. For reflection on these issues, see Aumann, Robert J. “Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality,” Econometrica 55 (1987): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Aumann, “Correlated Equilibrium,” 12–15.Google Scholar

23 Consider, for instance, the examples assembled by Lewis, C.S.The Abolition of Man (London: Oxford University Press, 1944), 41–48.Google Scholar

24 This is Elster's, Jon formulation, in The Cement of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 See Elster, The Cement of Society, 97–151Google Scholar; see also Heath, Joseph “Foundationalism and Practical Reason,” Mind 106 (1997): 451-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 See Durkheim, EmileMoral Education, trans. Wilson, Everett K. and Schnurer, Herman (New York: Free Press, 1961)Google Scholar.

27 Garfinkel, Harold “Studies in the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities,” in his Studies in Ethnomethodology (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984): 35–75.Google Scholar

28 See, e.g., Martin, Judith MissManners Rescues Civilization (New York: Crown, 1996), 29–63.Google Scholar

29 This is captured by Kant's idea that moral reasoning is governed by the regulative idea of the kingdom of ends. The laws governing this realm have no substantive content, but are merely those that all could will in common. This is unlike the laws governing the physical realm, which are not only subject to the formal constraint that they be the same for all, but also have their substantive content fixed.

30 Kymlicka, WillMulticultural Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).Google Scholar

31 See Taylor, Charles “What is Human Agency?” in Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Even here there are very high levels of agreement (although the patterns of convergence vary according to class and status group; see Bourdieu, PierreDistinction, trans. Nice, Richard [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984]).Google Scholar

33 Rawls, JohnPolitical Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), xxiv-xxvii.Google Scholar