Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:29:07.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sartorial Epistemology in Tatters: A Reply to Martin Hollis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Donald N. McCloskey
Affiliation:
University of Iowa

Extract

Martin Hollis, in the introduction to the collection of Rationality and Relativism he edited recently with Steven Lukes, describes himself as the most arch of arch rationalists, “by which we mean, merely, that [we] reject the forthright relativization of truth and reason.” You might suppose that his self-description would place him unambiguously in the army of traditionalists arrayed against what Richard Rorty fondly calls the New Fuzzies (like himself and me). You might suppose, then, that Hollis would indulge in furious letter writing to, say, Harper's, telling us that “we need to stand shoulder to shoulder against the growing army of enemies of rationality. By that I mean the followers of the fashionable cult of absolute relativism, emerging from philosophy, linguistics, semiotics, and deconstructionism.” You might suppose that he would go on in this way equivocating between “rationality” and “rationalism,” identifying the people he dislikes with the enemies of civilization: fascists, Stalinists, bikers, bomb throwing nihilists — Richard Rorty and Wayne Booth and Stephen Toulmin riding into town on their Harley- (or Donald-) Davidsons, spurning warrants for belief and good reasons, reading pornographic comic books (the new literary canon), and snarling at the townsfolk huddled behind the local syllogism.

Type
Discussions
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1982, p. 14.

2. “Science as Solidarity,” paper presented to the Iowa Symposium on the Rhetoric of the Human Sciences, March 28–31, 1984, p. 7. He calls them also “left-wing Kuhnians” and “radical pragmatists,” which fits with what Hollis says here. The New Fuzzies label if adapted from Clark Glymour, a nice example of the preemptive domestications of an epithet, as in “Tory” and “capitalist.”

3. Lawrence Stone, June 1984, p. 5.

4. In The Applied Theory of Price (New York: Macmillan, pp. 320, 448n, 557). I like his analogy with weather forecasting, which has indeed been a topos in my own conversations for several years: what, I ask, if the clouds were listening, and had an interest in taking advantage of the predictions about their fellow clouds?