PRAGMATISM and 'PRAGMATISM'
September 15th 1999
Generally, and indeed intuitively, we draw a distinction between the knower and the known; we see them as independent entities and we see the process of 'coming to know' as the potential knower and the potentially known coming together - their respective potentialities thereby being actualised. Epistemology is the attempt to identify criteria whereby this actualisation can be made in a dependable manner -'how can I know ........ that such and such is a fact?' is the question.
Pragmatism, according to James and Dewey who were the first people to try to make pragmatism into a credible philosophical scheme, is an epistemological short cut to the effect that 'if it works then it is true'. Subsequently, attempts have been made to extend this way of thinking to ethics -'if it works then it is right'.
My thesis is twofold :
1) that pragmatism, as sketched above, is salutary; it is simple and often useful
2) that pragmatism, as sketched above, is shallow; it is simple and often useful
1) that pragmatism, as sketched above, is salutary.
It cuts the ground from under much laborious unproductive thought and much pretentiousness and tyranny arising therefrom. 'What difference does it make if it is true - or false, for that matter?' is a question that we need to ask very frequently. If we asked it more often then there would be less head scratching, not to mention head breaking, on notions that refer only obliquely, if at all, to our response to the here and now. Do I really relate better to my neighbour if I care whether Jesus was conceived in a virgin or was conceived the same way as the rest of us? If I donšt care about this then I am unlikely to quarrel with my neighbours who may have strong views about it; their attempts to pick a quarrel with me on the subject will likely fail if I donšt care about it, at first order, very much.
2) that pragmatism, as sketched above, is shallow.
a) epistemologically: science is often held, by non-scientists especially, to flow from the idea that 'if it works then it is true'; science does not happen like that ....... it simply does not! The practice of science rests upon 'if it works then it is true enough to enable it to work'. (In passing, this is not so much a truth as a truism). A simple example will suffice.
Engineers have given us many machines and structures based on the principles of classical 19th century physics - which, at the time, was widely taken to be a universal truth. That sort of physics has been shown to be fundamentally wrong ; it gives us quite false expectations about various phenomena on the very small scale (the sub- atomic) and on the very large scale (the cosmological). Classical physics is not a universal truth; it is a special case that does 'well enough', it happens, to the limited spheres to which ordinary day to day engineering is applicable.
But the structures and machines still 'work' - the erroneous physics on which they are based notwithstanding. For instance, that erroneous physics is, 'true enough' reliably to have informed the constructors of the Forth Bridge. If that bridge is now falling down then we might blame poor maintenance; we ought not to blame Max Planck and Albert Einstein for overturning classical physics.
It is a dangerous error to invite the assumption that 'true enough' is somehow the same as 'universally true'.
b) ethically : 'if it works then it is right' can be very dangerous - as a contemporary example might suggest.
It might be held that the government has a duty to reassure us that they are protecting us from the possibly harmful effects of genetically modified crops. On the 'if it works' basis, the government might score ethical credit, might succeed in reassuring us, by either of two means (or by a blend of the two) ..... by actually studying the subject and taking effectual steps to keep us from harm (as far as may be both necessary and possible) ...... or by mounting a smooth propaganda campaign to the effect that there is no great problem and that what steps are necessary are already in hand.
To 'do something' is ethically laudable; merely to appear to be 'doing something' is ethically reprehensible. On the 'if it works' ethic - as applied to the goal of reassuring people - the two are equally good. To claim that government is being 'pragmatic' on this matter can mean either that it is being down-to-earth free from ideological bias or that it is being dishonest.
When we meet the use of 'pragmatic' in politics, for example, we have to suspect that it is opportunism rather than searching practical action that is going on. 'Pragmatic' might be taken to mean cut-the-cackle scepticism; it often means merely unprincipled evasion.
The manipulative propagandists, the news managers, the spin doctors, have an interest in blurring this distinction - a blurring that often results in the deliberate use of weasel words.
The statement "the government seeks to minimise the dangers from GM crops" can mean that an attempt is being made to contain and counter the dangers in fact ... but .... it can mean that an attempt is being made merely to diminish our perception of whatever danger there may be.
If 'action has to be taken' and 'to be seen to be being taken' then it has to be said that pragmatism, in its debased contemporary sense, gives the second of these imperatives more importance than the first.
'
Danger: pragmatists at work' is a thought that should be foremost in the mind whenever public persons say things to us about what they are doing.
HOME PAGE