Some time ago, Mike Huemer wrote an article discussing “absurd” theories of truth. I don’t want to address the article as a whole, but instead want to focus on two components: the linguistic tests Huemer favors, and pragmatic accounts of truth.
In principle, sure, but I am stubborn and have high standards. I have no real hatred or hostility towards the paranormal and find it fascinating. But I am wary of charlatans who exploit belief in the paranormal to take advantage of others.
Well, I've heard this for over 50 years as a generality, but when it comes to specifics, I end up hearing materialist dogma.
Are you really perfectly open to the possibility?
Here's one. For the sake of philosophic discussion, leaving aside arguments about methodology, statistics, etc., assume the facts as reported are accurate, and the information could not have been obtained "subconsciously."
There is a 750 sq ft apartment you've never entered. You have no information about the occupants nor about the layout.
One day, you "see" the apartment in great detail (that is, you see it in your awareness).
The details include:
1. The precise layout of the rooms - including bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, study, living room, hallways, and dining room.
2. The apartment includes several bookshelves. You see one in particular, in an unusual place in the room, painted an unusual color, filled with over 100 books, having several shelves. You see a specific book, on a specific shelf, at a precise location (x number of books from the right), and you see the precise cover design and the name of the author.
You write down all the details.
Later, you check this out and it's precisely as you describe.
I assume you are familiar enough with scientific methdology that single case studies are perfectly acceptable evidence (like seeing sneakers on a ledge while lying unconscious in an operating room, seen from an angle that would not be visible from the street or the operating room, but only from above).
Would you accept that as at least indicating a reasonable possibility of valid remote viewing?
I'll give you one more, which recently has surprised me in regard to those who say they are fully open to paranormal possibilities but simply refuse to even engage. Again, assume the facts are as reported:
I'm making up the names here:
Joe reports seeing round, luminous, glowing circles several inches in diameter, hovering above the ground, about 5 feet or so in the air. They last for about 3 to 5 seconds, and sometimes are violet or blue.
Jim later compares his experience with Joe, and for several months - with extremely careful checking to make sure they are not influencing each other - both report seeing the same thing (colors, size, height from ground, etc) at the same time in the same location. Others in the room are unable to see these.
Possibility of some kind of subtle paranormal seeing?
Ok, you truly surprised me. Those were both things that happened to me. I’m quite aware that the records I kept of these events (over 45 years ago) are not sufficient for scientific documentation. I can even - slightly - see how skeptics have tried (usually rather humorously) to come up with all kinds of ways to suggest the apartment description involved a series of lucky guesses.
I had mostly told this to “big name” philosophers and scientists online, so a few years ago I tried it with a very intelligent guy in person. He started out with “Well why couldn’t be a bunch of lucky guesses,” and I said, I’m open to as many guesses as you like. Forget the book, just guess the layout. It’s only about 7 rooms.”
He tried over two dozen times and didn’t get one right answer. As a life long dedicated materialist, I admired his willingness to express his astonishment and willingness to change his mind.
You are the very first person who listened to the account of the luminous circles who even was willing to consider it.
Those were particularly powerful for me, as when it occurred, I was 20 and still a very intensely skeptical person toward psi.
You have done well to separate pragmatism from crude “useful equals true.” But you’re still treating truth as something settled by what any individual finds coherent or synergetic... A belief’s “fit” with one’s current worldview is not enough, otherwise truth would vary arbitrarily from person to person. The real test is whether the belief 'would hold up for any inquirer who followed the method of science" far enough, as Peirce would frame it .. Truth is the ideal limit of investigation, not the survivor of one’s personal trials. And usefulness follows from that—not the other way around.
So when you argue that pragmatism doesn’t predict simple linguistic intuitions, I think you’re right. But not because the path from "theory" to "prediction" is full of methodological traps. It’s because the meaning of a concept lies in its conceivable practical bearings for a community of inquirers, not in what isolated speakers would assent to when asked. Hence the Pragmatic maxim!. The proper “test” is not a survey.... it’s the long run of experience, experiment, and investigation.
Hey, Lance. Great read. I disagreed with you here on some fronts.
Firstly, you commented that Huemer's critique doesn't apply to all formulations of pragmatism.
However, a critique doesn't need to apply to all formulations of a view. For example, in the case of meta-ethics, I'd raise the unintelligibility critique against some forms of moral realism, but that doesn't apply to all forms of moral realism (such as, moral naturalism). Instead, I have different critiques depending on the formulation of moral realism. Critiques don't need to be catch-all. It's fine if Huemer's critique only applies to one or two versions of pragmatism.
Secondly, you said Huemer's construal of Pragmatism as Truth=Useful is a strawman. I believe you argued that according to Classical Pragmatism, Truth is more than simply local expedience.
Now yes, if Huemer conflated "useful" with "local expedience", then that would be a very bad objection to pragmatism. However, I never saw Huemer adopt an extremely narrow conception of "usefulness" as simply "local expedience". I doubt many people have that conception of "useful". It seemed like Huemer was just going with what "useful" means to Pragmatists, and mounting his argument on that basis.
So I never saw any evidence Huemer conflated "useful" with "local expedience" (which, yes, would be fallacious). Other than that, I actually enjoyed reading this, and agreed with a lot of other points.
Well I think Lance is assuming that Huemer's assertion that pragmatists can't believe in the concept of "useful falsehood" hinges on "usefulness" being conflated with "local expedience." Otherwise, pragmatists can easily deflate the argument, as Lance describes.
Thanks, this was very helpful. What I found most interesting is exploring the sense in which a useful falsehood makes sense under pragmatism. I probably have as inaccurate a picture of pragmatism as Huemer, so it's good to be set straight(er) on this stuff.
Is there any empirical data that would inspire you to take parapsychological evidence seriously?
In principle, sure, but I am stubborn and have high standards. I have no real hatred or hostility towards the paranormal and find it fascinating. But I am wary of charlatans who exploit belief in the paranormal to take advantage of others.
Well, I've heard this for over 50 years as a generality, but when it comes to specifics, I end up hearing materialist dogma.
Are you really perfectly open to the possibility?
Here's one. For the sake of philosophic discussion, leaving aside arguments about methodology, statistics, etc., assume the facts as reported are accurate, and the information could not have been obtained "subconsciously."
There is a 750 sq ft apartment you've never entered. You have no information about the occupants nor about the layout.
One day, you "see" the apartment in great detail (that is, you see it in your awareness).
The details include:
1. The precise layout of the rooms - including bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, study, living room, hallways, and dining room.
2. The apartment includes several bookshelves. You see one in particular, in an unusual place in the room, painted an unusual color, filled with over 100 books, having several shelves. You see a specific book, on a specific shelf, at a precise location (x number of books from the right), and you see the precise cover design and the name of the author.
You write down all the details.
Later, you check this out and it's precisely as you describe.
I assume you are familiar enough with scientific methdology that single case studies are perfectly acceptable evidence (like seeing sneakers on a ledge while lying unconscious in an operating room, seen from an angle that would not be visible from the street or the operating room, but only from above).
Would you accept that as at least indicating a reasonable possibility of valid remote viewing?
I'll give you one more, which recently has surprised me in regard to those who say they are fully open to paranormal possibilities but simply refuse to even engage. Again, assume the facts are as reported:
I'm making up the names here:
Joe reports seeing round, luminous, glowing circles several inches in diameter, hovering above the ground, about 5 feet or so in the air. They last for about 3 to 5 seconds, and sometimes are violet or blue.
Jim later compares his experience with Joe, and for several months - with extremely careful checking to make sure they are not influencing each other - both report seeing the same thing (colors, size, height from ground, etc) at the same time in the same location. Others in the room are unable to see these.
Possibility of some kind of subtle paranormal seeing?
Given those stipulations those would be evidence of the proposed phenomena, sure.
Ok, you truly surprised me. Those were both things that happened to me. I’m quite aware that the records I kept of these events (over 45 years ago) are not sufficient for scientific documentation. I can even - slightly - see how skeptics have tried (usually rather humorously) to come up with all kinds of ways to suggest the apartment description involved a series of lucky guesses.
I had mostly told this to “big name” philosophers and scientists online, so a few years ago I tried it with a very intelligent guy in person. He started out with “Well why couldn’t be a bunch of lucky guesses,” and I said, I’m open to as many guesses as you like. Forget the book, just guess the layout. It’s only about 7 rooms.”
He tried over two dozen times and didn’t get one right answer. As a life long dedicated materialist, I admired his willingness to express his astonishment and willingness to change his mind.
You are the very first person who listened to the account of the luminous circles who even was willing to consider it.
Those were particularly powerful for me, as when it occurred, I was 20 and still a very intensely skeptical person toward psi.
Thanks for listening!
You have done well to separate pragmatism from crude “useful equals true.” But you’re still treating truth as something settled by what any individual finds coherent or synergetic... A belief’s “fit” with one’s current worldview is not enough, otherwise truth would vary arbitrarily from person to person. The real test is whether the belief 'would hold up for any inquirer who followed the method of science" far enough, as Peirce would frame it .. Truth is the ideal limit of investigation, not the survivor of one’s personal trials. And usefulness follows from that—not the other way around.
So when you argue that pragmatism doesn’t predict simple linguistic intuitions, I think you’re right. But not because the path from "theory" to "prediction" is full of methodological traps. It’s because the meaning of a concept lies in its conceivable practical bearings for a community of inquirers, not in what isolated speakers would assent to when asked. Hence the Pragmatic maxim!. The proper “test” is not a survey.... it’s the long run of experience, experiment, and investigation.
Hey, Lance. Great read. I disagreed with you here on some fronts.
Firstly, you commented that Huemer's critique doesn't apply to all formulations of pragmatism.
However, a critique doesn't need to apply to all formulations of a view. For example, in the case of meta-ethics, I'd raise the unintelligibility critique against some forms of moral realism, but that doesn't apply to all forms of moral realism (such as, moral naturalism). Instead, I have different critiques depending on the formulation of moral realism. Critiques don't need to be catch-all. It's fine if Huemer's critique only applies to one or two versions of pragmatism.
Secondly, you said Huemer's construal of Pragmatism as Truth=Useful is a strawman. I believe you argued that according to Classical Pragmatism, Truth is more than simply local expedience.
Now yes, if Huemer conflated "useful" with "local expedience", then that would be a very bad objection to pragmatism. However, I never saw Huemer adopt an extremely narrow conception of "usefulness" as simply "local expedience". I doubt many people have that conception of "useful". It seemed like Huemer was just going with what "useful" means to Pragmatists, and mounting his argument on that basis.
So I never saw any evidence Huemer conflated "useful" with "local expedience" (which, yes, would be fallacious). Other than that, I actually enjoyed reading this, and agreed with a lot of other points.
Well I think Lance is assuming that Huemer's assertion that pragmatists can't believe in the concept of "useful falsehood" hinges on "usefulness" being conflated with "local expedience." Otherwise, pragmatists can easily deflate the argument, as Lance describes.
Thanks, this was very helpful. What I found most interesting is exploring the sense in which a useful falsehood makes sense under pragmatism. I probably have as inaccurate a picture of pragmatism as Huemer, so it's good to be set straight(er) on this stuff.
I really hope more people learn about pragmatism. It is far richer than the superficial picture people get from the outside.
Useful fiction is a common concept, an LLC for example.
If someone mentions pragmatism I expect them to engage with actual pragmatism and not a caricature.
No, it's not addressed.
I don't like your attitude. You seem unpleasant. And I'm just tired of engaging with unpleasant people, so I will not be engaging with you.