Transcript - Lorentz Center

How is it possible to
understand others?
‘Understanding and the Aims of Science’
Leiden, May-June 2010
Bart Karstens, Institute of Philosophy, Leiden
Overview and theses
1.
2.
3.
4.
-
Dominant approach to history of science
Use of charity in understanding
Discussion of the uses of charity
Conclusion:
Charity is needed to gain understanding
of past science
Proper use of charity is at odds with 1.
Understanding and current
historiography of science
Dominant view on science
- Science is a man made fabric
- The aim of the endeavour is to attain grip on the world
- Studying science is part of studying human behaviour
Tasks for the historian of science
- Try to understand motives and deeds of historical actors
- Describe social processes of knowledge formation
- Focus on processes not on products
- Extension of number of factors involved
(proliferation of symmetry)
Understanding and charity
Principle of charity:
• Assume the intentions and/or behaviour of
others are very much the same as ours
• Maximize agreement (or minimize
disagreement) with others
• On what? Can be on various ‘cognitive goods’:
rationality, truth, intelligibility, intentionality,
plausibility, usefulness, consistency,…
• Level of abstraction, Collingwood:re-enactment
Philosophy line Wilson-Quine-Davidson-etc.
Understanding and charity
►Understanding human behaviour involves
applying charity
“Charity is not a condition sine qua non with regard
to the understanding of someone else, but is as
matter of fact an essential component of the
mechanism of understanding.”(Geurts,Van Brakel Dialectica42 1988)
“Charity is a precondition for understanding; a
precondition which derives from the nature of
understanding itself.” (Malpas Dialectica 42 1988)
Charity used in history of science
Other line: Wilson-Gellner-Collins-Shapin/Schaffer-etc.
“We can see that the question of charitability in
anthropology has a parallel in scientific disputes. In
anthropology, lack of charity in interpretation implies a
defence of the anthropologist’s conception of rational
behaviour and a license to change primitive tribes in a
direction which finds favour in Western eyes. In science,
too, lack of charity implies a defence of the status quo
and a licence to expel anomalous findings from the body
of scientific knowledge. Charitable interpretation imply
the opposite.”
Harry Collins, ‘Son of Seven Sexes: the social destruction of a physical
phenomenon’ Social Studies of Science 11-1 (1981)
Charity in Leviathan and the Air-pump
• “We shall be adopting something close to a member’s
account of Hobbes’s anti-experimentalism. That is to say
we want to put ourselves into a position where objections
to the anti-experimental programme seem plausible,
sensible and rational. Following Gellner we shall adopt a
charitable interpretation of Hobbes’s point of view.”
Shapin and Schaffer, LAP p.13
• “If the historian wanted to evaluate the actors by the
standards of present day scientific procedure he would
find both Hobbes and Boyle vulnerable.”
Shapin and Schaffer, LAP p.13
Charity as symmetry?
• Charity used here to take away the aura of
self-evidence of modern science.
• Do not impose the norms of modern
science on the past.
• Do not attribute error to past scientists.
Fear: charity = imperialism
“ ‘Charity’ and ‘humanity’ have long been in the
missionary vanguard of globalizing commerce.
Our ‘native’ may be wondering whether
philosophical B52s and strategic hamlets are in
the offing if he wont sit up and speak like the
English. ...if the native does not share most of
our beliefs and wants, he is not engaged in
human discourse, and is at best subhuman (the
native has heard that one before too.)”
Ian Hacking, Why does Language matter to Philosophy? 1975
Two ways of rejecting charity
• Either charity is rejected for embodying
linguistic imperialism or being a species of
verificationism
• Or charity is rejected for being insensitive
to error or disagreement
‘Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner’
Divergence of origin?
• Both Gellner and Quine/Davidson had
different intentions. To them:
- Using charity does not involve insensitivity
to qualitative differences
- Charity is not used to dominate others: it is
just an essential part of the interpretation
process. Other people(s) do the same!
Charity in Gellner, ‘Concepts and Society’ (1962)
• Contextual understanding of concepts
• How to translate a concept from a historical
context and language to our own context and
language?
• Constraints on cognitive goods determine how
much context to involve in interpretation
• So contextual charity ‘ends at home’:
• “There is nothing in the nature of things or
societies to dictate visibly how much context is
relevant to any given utterance, or how that
context should be described.”
Charity in Gellner
• Gellner is a contextualist
• But he thinks too much charity is bound to
misdescribe the social situation
• Other (past) cultures are full of illogical
beliefs, inconsistencies even absurdities
• These can be explained if they can be
found to solve social problems/needs
• ‘The uncharitable may be a contextualist in
the second, deeper and better sense.’
Charity in Gellner
• Access to the illogicalities/absurdities is
not blocked:
“We can sometimes only make sense of the
society in question by seeing how the
manipulation of concepts and the violation
of categorical boundaries (ours BK) helps
it to work.”
Charity in Gellner
Precisely at these points we can see the need for
improvement:
“Excessive indulgence in contextual charity blinds us to
what is best and what is worst in the life of societies. It
blinds us to the possibility that social change may occur
through a replacement of an inconsistent doctrine by a
better one or through a more consistent application of it.”
Similar view put forward by Christopher Norris:
“Thus it is more charitable… to assume that others are
likewise placed with regard to both the possibility of error
and the prospects of improved understanding.”
‘Why strong sociologists abhor a vacuum. Shapin and Schaffer on the Hobbes/Boyle
controversy’ Philosophy and Social Criticism (1997)
To sum up so far
Gellner and Collins/S&S agree on two things:
1.Concepts needs to be understood socially
2.Application of charity excludes errors
However we can see considerable differences:
- S&S think they liberate themselves from norms (i.e. the
self evident correctness of our scientific standards)
- But to Gellner they impose too much normativity in the
name of charity (rational, plausible, and sensible
interpretations)
- Result: S&S are not proper contextualists
- Their unreflective reference to Gellner is thus curious
Holism, charity and error
• The principle of charity does not lead to insensitivity to
error or disagreement in Davidson/Quine
• Holism: understanding is the articulation of concepts as
part of an interconnected whole of beliefs (of others)
• Connect this to one’s own whole of beliefs
• Interpretation is playing out of attitudinal (unobserved)
and behavioral (observed) subsystems of these wholes
• Background: ontological presupposition
• Gavagai example
Ongoing process of interpretation
• Understanding of others is a matter of
making connections
• This may involve adjustments in our own
system of beliefs!
• It is a continuous balancing act which
starts time and again with application of
charity
Place of Error and Disagreement
These have to be minimized: too much invariance = too much loss of
connections = collapse of interpretation project
Three reasons why error and disagreement are not totally excluded
1.If we have reasons for disagreement much of the disagreement has
been bridged! Misunderstanding = understanding. No understanding
at all is better understood as a-understanding
2.We may find differences between attitudinal and behavioral systems:
adjust these: local revisions
3.Local variance is allowed as long as specific points of difference do
not infect the whole system
-
Truth and agreement are prior to error and disagreement.
Only against large agreement on true beliefs can false beliefs even
made sense of.
Understanding is a product
• To under-stand, Dutch be-grip, literally grip
• The process of interpreting leads to a
product understanding
• In holistic terms:
better connections = better understanding
• It is simply the state of the network
Consequences of the discussion
for understanding past science
• Seems clear that some sort of charity is
needed to understand others
• Charity as avoiding error blocks proper
understanding of the past
• Some normative standards have to be
applied in the process of interpretation
• Thus evaluation is part of the end-product:
understanding the past
• Contextualists have to accept these terms
Further thinking on normative
standards
We need to be flexible on our own standards but how flexible?
This question is related to theme of underdetermination
1. Underdetermination of evidence makes a selection of interpretation
necessary. What are the constraints on this, if any? Problem of
induction?
2. Underdetermination in holistic interpretation process
• Result of holistic view is a weak principle of charity:
• All that is demanded is some sort of correlation between
conceptual systems
• Yields high level of underdetermination because no external criteria
are provided
• Explanandum = explanans