Comments on Shapere and Hesse

Citation preview

Comments on Shapere and Hesse Fred I. Dretske PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1976, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. (1976), pp. 299-303. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0270-8647%281976%291976%3C299%3ACOSAH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Fri May 18 08:37:06 2007

Comments

Shapere and Hesse

Fred I. Dretske

U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin

P r o f e s s o r Shapere t r i e s t o show t h a t t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of knowledge i n t o s c i e n t i f i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and nomenclature and i t s u s e i n t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of s c i e n t i f i c f i e l d s and domains i s n e i t h e r r a r e nor t o b e avoided. On t h e c o n t r a r y , h e s a y s , i t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mature s c i e n c e and t h e r e a r e good r e a s o n s why i t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . D e f i n i t e advantages a r e gained t h e r e b y i n p u r s u i t of s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h ( [ 2 ] , p. 291). What a r e t h e s e advantages? A s f a r a s I can s e e Shapere does n o t des c r i b e any advantages t o i n c o r p o r a t i n g our t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge i n t o o u r c l a s s i f i c a t o r y vocabulary t h a t a r e n o t a l r e a d y advantages t o o u r h a v i n g t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge--whether o r n o t we a l t e r our c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system t o r e f l e c t i t . There i s , c l e a r l y , an advantage t o knowing a l l t h e t h i n g s t h a t Shapere d e s c r i b e s a s b e i n g embodied i n s t e l l a r d e s c r i p t i o n s . This i s u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l . What & c o n t r o v e r s i a l , o r a t l e a s t n o t obvious, i s what a d d i t i o n a l advantage i s gained by a b s o r b i n g t h i s knowledge i n t o t h e c l a s s i f i c a t o r y a p p a r a t u s we use t o d e s c r i b e t h e items i n a domain. I f I know t h a t a l l t h e A 1 s w h i c h s t a n d i n r e l a t i o n R t o t h i n g s which a r e B have t h e p r o p e r t y C, I can use t h i s knowledge t o r e c l a s s i f y t h e A ' s . Perhaps i t would b e u s e f u l t o c a l l t h e A f s w h i c h s t a n d i n r e l a t i o n R t o t h i n g s which a r e B by a s p e c i a l name s o a s t o more economically e x p r e s s t h e law Shapere i s s u r e l y r i g h t t o p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t we do r e l a t i n g them t o C. t h i n g s l i k e t h i s , t h a t our knowledge a f f e c t s o u r systems of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . A f t e r a l l , t h e more we know t h e b e t t e r a b l e we a r e t o group t h i n g s i n ways t h a t s u b s e r v e t h e e x p r e s s i o n of more g e n e r a l law-like g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s and t h e o r i e s . But t h i s advantage, i t seems t o me, i s a d e s c r i p t i v e advantage --not, a s Shapere seems t o s u g g e s t , an e p i s t e m i c advantage. By a l t e r i n g o u r c l a s s i f i c a t o r y systems under t h e guidance of our accumu l a t i n g knowledge we o b t a i n more e l e g a n t , more powerful, and more p e r s p i c uous d e s c r i p t i v e systems by means of which t o e x p r e s s what we know. But we do n o t e s s e n t i a l l y change o r enhance what we know. Shapere seems t o t h i n k t h a t we do. I guess I d o n ' t understand how t h i s i s supposed t o work. He t e l l s us t h a t problems, hypotheses, and l i n e s of r e s e a r c h a r e i n d i c a t e d , i n many c a s e s , through t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n of well-grounded knowledge claims

PSA 1976, Volume 2, pp. 299-303 1977 by t h e Philosophy of S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n Copyright

a

i n t o s t e l l a r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Does h e mean t o s u g g e s t , t h e n , t h a t t h e s e problems, hypotheses, and l i n e s of r e s e a r c h a r e not i n d i c a t e d u n l e s s we embed t h e knowledge i n t o our system of s t e l l a r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n - - t h a t , somehow, t h e knowledge a l o n e ( a s i d e from t h e change i t b r i n g s about i n o u r c l a s s i f i c a t o r y a p p a r a t u s ) i s powerless t o have t h e s e b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s ? Why? What magic i s wrought by t h e a b s o r p t i o n of knowledge i n t o t h e c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system? Shapere d o e s n ' t e x p l a i n i t . Unless I missed something, t h e most h e does i s t o show t h a t such a b s o r p t i o n t a k e s p l a c e and t h a t t h e knowledge s o absorbed h a s b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s . What remains t o b e shown is whether i t i s t h e knowledge o r i t s a b s o r p t i o n t h a t is responsible f o r these effects.

I d o n ' t t h i n k I understand what Hesse [ l ] i s up t o . There i s s o much t h a t I f i n d confusing about h e r p a p e r t h a t I conclude, i n accordance w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e of c h a r i t y , t h a t I am u s i n g t h e wrong t r a n s l a t i o n manual.

She s a y s , f o r example, t h a t T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y of t r u t h i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ( o r , a t b e s t , incomplete) because i t does n o t p r o v i d e an e x p l i c a t i m of such t h e o r e t i c a l s e n t e n c e s a s " E l e c t r o n s a r e round." We a r e t o l d t h a t T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y d o e s n ' t h e l p u s w i t h t h i s s e n t e n c e because i f we a r e w o r r i e d about t h e t r u t h and r e f e r e n c e of t h i s s e n t e n c e i n t h e o b j e c t language, we a r e e q u a l l y w o r r i e d about i t i n t h e metalanguage. The problem, s h e s a y s , i s t h a t we do n o t know how t o c o n s t r u e t h e p h y s i c a l i s t concomit a n t s of such s e n t e n c e s ( [ I ] P. 2 6 3 ) . I am n o t s u r e I know what t h e " p h y s i c a l i s t concomitants" of a s e n t e n c e a r e supposed t o b e , b u t i f we t a k e them t o b e , roughly, t h e s e t of observa b l e p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s under which t h e s e n t e n c e i s t r u e , o r probably t r u e , t h e n M s . Hesse i s making t h e p o i n t t h a t T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y of t r u t h does n o t supply u s w i t h an o b s e r v a t i o n a l r e c i p e f o r determining which theor e t i c a l s e n t e n c e s a r e t r u e . It d o e s n ' t t e l l u s what t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s mean i n physics--what t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i s . It seems t o me t h a t t h i s charge b e t r a y s a s e r i o u s misunderstanding of what a t h e o r y of t r u t h i s supposed t o be. A t h e o r y of t r u t h i s n o t a t h e o r y of meaning. It i s n o t a t h e o r y of c o n f i r m a t i o n . I f I am w o r r i e d about t h e t r u t h of t h e s e n t e n c e "Oscar s t o l e my w a l l e t , " T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y of t r u t h i s n ' t going t o h e l p me, b u t n e i t h e r i s any o t h e r t h e o r y of t r u t h . But t h i s i s n o t because t h e s e t h e o r i e s of t r u t h a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s s e n t e n c e . Rather, i t i s because a t h e o r y of t r u t h is a t h e o r y , n o t about which s e n t e n c e s a r e t r u e and which s e n t e n c e s a r e f a l s e , n o t about t h e o b s e r v a b l e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t might f i g u r e i n o u r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a s e n t e n c e ' s t r u t h , b u t about t h e c o n d i t i o n , o r s e t of c o n d i t i o n s , t h a t c o n s t i t u t e a s e n t e n c e ' s being t r u e .

What Ms. Hesse seems t o want from a t h e o r y of t r u t h i s a t h e o r y of confirmation--some kind of e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e observa b l e c o n d i t i o n s under which a s e n t e n c e can reasonably b e h e l d t o b e t r u e . She makes c l e a r t h e f a c t t h a t what s h e i s a f t e r i s n o t a t h e o r y of t r u t h , b u t a t h e o r y of (what may b e c a l l e d ) o b s e r v a t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e when s h e a s s e r t s t h a t i f t h e Carnapian e f f o r t s t o reduce t h e o r e t i c a l s e n t e n c e s t o o b s e r v a t i o n s e n t e n c e s had been s u c c e s s f u l , t h e n t h i s would have c o n s t i t u t e d a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x t e n s i o n of T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y of t r u t h t o t h e o r e t i c a l s e n t e n c e s ( [ I ] , p. 263). T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y of t r u t h is i n a d e q u a t e because i t d o e s n ' t s p e c i f y t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s under which t h e o r e t i c a l s e n t e n c e s apply. But why should a t h e o r y of t r u t h b e o b l i g e d t o p r o v i d e t h i s s p e c i f i c a t i o n ? The only r e a s o n one might demand t h i s of a t h e o r y of t r u t h i s i f one thought t h a t t h e t r u t h of a s e n t e n c e was, somehow, bound up w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r i t s v e r i f i c a t i o n . I h e s i t a t e t o a s c r i b e t h i s p o s i t i v i s t i c d o c t r i n e t o Ms. Hesse. It i s a l s o s u g g e s t e d t h a t what i s needed i n t h e way of a t h e o r y of t r u t h i s a c a u s a l s t o r y t h a t i n d i c a t e s how a language community comes t o b e t t e r t r u e and meaningful d e s c r i p t i v e s e n t e n c e s ( [ I ] , pp. 263-64). Perhaps we do need such a c a u s a l t h e o r y , b u t I s e e no r e a s o n t o t h i n k t h a t such a t h e o r y would b e a t h e o r y of t r u t h . Q u i t e t h e c o n t r a r y , i t seems c l e a r t h a t such a c a u s a l t h e o r y could n o t b e a t h e o r y of t r u t h - - a t l e a s t n o t i n t h e s e n s e i n which T a r s k i ' s t h e o r y o r t h e Coherence t h e o r y a r e t h e o r i e s of t r u t h . For such a c a u s a l t h e o r y would n o t even make s e n s e u n l e s s we a l r e a d y had a t h e o r y of t r u t h . Members of a language community u t t e r f a l s e d e s c r i p t i v e s e n t e n c e s a s w e l l a s t r u e ones, and presumably t h e i r u t t e r a n c e of t h e s e f a l s e s e n t e n c e s i s a s much a c a u s a l m a t t e r a s t h e i r u t t e r a n c e of t h e t r u e ones. I f Ms. Hesse wants a c a u s a l account of t h e one c l a s s of e v e n t s r a t h e r t h a n t h e o t h e r c l a s s of e v e n t s , i t can only b e because t h e i d e a of a s e n t e n c e ' s truth is a n i d e a t h a t i s independent of o u r b e i n g caused t o u t t e r i t . T h i s i s merely a n o t h e r way of s a y i n g t h a t we cannot hope t o g i v e a c a u s a l account of how people come t o u t t e r t r u e s e n t e n c e s u n l e s s we have some way of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between t r u e and f a l s e s e n t e n c e s t h a t i s independent of t h e i r u t t e r a n c e .

We a r e given something c a l l e d a Consensus Theory of T r u t h . We a r e t o l d t h a t almost everyone w i l l a g r e e t h a t f o r a given language community "true" o b s e r v a t i o n s e n t e n c e s and " c o r r e c t " a p p l i c a t i o n of o b s e r v a t i o n terms a r e ( a t l e a s t ) t h o s e t h a t a r e r e i n f o r c e d a s such by t h e consensus of t h e community. It i s q u i c k l y noted t h a t t r u t h i s not b e i n g reduced t o mere cons e n s u s : "It does n o t f o l l o w i n such a t h e o r y t h a t e v e r y t h i n g t h a t i s agreed i s t r u e , n o r t h a t t r u t h i s r e l a t i v i s e d t o a language community." For a l though t r u t h i s b e i n g equated w i t h community agreement, t h e t y p e of agreement i n q u e s t i o n i s t h a t which i s i t s e l f s u b j e c t t o e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s . The language community a g r e e s t h a t "Grass i s green" i s t r u e , b u t t h e cons e n s u s i s n o t c a p r i c i o u s o r a r b i t r a r y . For t h e r e i s something about g r a s s t h a t determines our agreement ( [ I ] , p. 265). What i s i t about g r a s s t h a t

is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e almost unanimous agreement among English speaking people t h a t t h e sentence "Grass i s green" i s t r u e ? Something, presumably, about i t s c o l o r . Perhaps t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s green. One i s hardpressed t o s e e what o t h e r r e l e v a n t e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t t h e r e might be on our consensus about t h e t r u t h of t h i s sentence. But i f t h i s is s o , then t h e Consensus Theory of Truth i s j u s t t h e correspondence theory of t r u t h dressed up i n c a u s a l terminology. It i s l i k e having a consensus theory of Volkswagens: a Volkswagen i s any automobile t h a t people agree t o c a l l a Volkswagen--as long a s t h e i r agreement t o c a l l i t a Volkswagen i s cond i t i o n e d o r constrained by t h e type of c a r i t i s and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , by i t s being a Volkswagen.

Aside from t h e Consensus Theory of Truth Ms. Hesse a r t i c u l a t e s a princ i p l e t h a t she wields w i t h d e v a s t a t i n g e f f e c t . According t o t h e p r i n c i p l e of no p r i v i l e g e , our s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s a r e a s much s u b j e c t t o r a d i c a l conceptual change a s p a s t t h e o r i e s a r e seen t o be ( [ I ] , p. 264). This p r i n c i p l e sounds l i k e an appeal f o r t o l e r a n c e and open-mindedness, a reminder t h a t man i s f a l l i b l e , t h a t h i s cherished t h e o r i e s have turned out wrong i n t h e p a s t and may w e l l t u r n out wrong i n t h e f u t u r e . Understood i n t h i s way t h e p r i n c i p l e appears t o be no more than t h e expression of a healthy scepticism. But t h i s i s n ' t how Ms. Hesse understands t h e princ i p l e . According t o h e r t h i s p r i n c i p l e implies t h a t e i t h e r a l l t h e o r i e s a r e t r u e o r a l l a r e f a l s e . This i s no-privilege with a vengeance. Since i t i s h e r p r i n c i p l e , she can claim f o r i t what she p l e a s e s , b u t I am a t a l o s s t o understand why anyone would want a p r i n c i p l e with t h e s e paradoxic a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . For, s u r e l y , any p r i n c i p l e t h a t has t h e s e i m p l i c a t i o n s i s simply a f a l s e p r i n c i p l e . My b e l i e f s a r e n ' t p r i v i l e g e d and I would be t h e f i r s t t o admit i t . I have been wrong i n t h e p a s t and I can be wrong again. But t o admit t h i s , and t o endorse a p r i n c i p l e t h a t e n j o i n s such modesty, i s not equivalent t o t h e view t h a t a l l my b e l i e f s a r e f a l s e o r t h a t i f my b e l i e f s contrad i c t yours, then e i t h e r we a r e both r i g h t o r both wrong. The only explana t i o n I can f i n d f o r why Ms. Hesse might think t h a t h e r p r i n c i p l e has such s t r a n g e consequences i s i f she b e l i e v e s t h a t i f something can be f a l s e , i t is f a l s e . The p r i n c i p l e of no p r i v i l e g e t e l l s us t h a t our contemporary t h e o r i e s a r e a s much s u b j e c t t o r a d i c a l change a s t h e t h e o r i e s they superceded. That i s , e i t h e r a l l t h e o r i e s can be f a l s e o r none of them can be f a l s e . And i f none of f a l s e . I f they can all be f a l s e , then they a l l = them can be f a l s e , then they a r e a l l t r u e . This i s t h e only way I can r e c o n s t r u c t t h e p a t t e r n of reasoning t h a t l e a d s Ms. Hesse t o say t h a t , "Therefore i n t h e s p i r i t of t h e p r i n c i p l e of no p r i v i l e g e , we must say e i t h e r t h a t a l l t h e s e ontologies a r e t r u e , i . e . , we must g i v e a r e a l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a l l of them, o r we must say they a r e a l l f a l s e . " ( [ I 1 P. 266).

References [ l ] H e s s e , Mary, " T r u t h a n d t h e Growth o f S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge." PSA 1976, Volume Two. E d i t e d b y F. Suppe and P.D. A s q u i t h . E a s t L a n s i n g : P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1977. P a g e s 261-280. [2]

In

S h a p e r e , Dudley. "The I n f l u e n c e o f Knowledge on t h e D e s c r i p t i o n of Facts." I n PSA 1976, Volume Two. E d i t e d by F. Suppe and P.D. A s q u i t h . E a s t L a n s i n g : P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1977. P a g e s 281-298.