Truth Pluralism and Mathematics

When I started out as a graduate student writing a thesis defending mathematical nominalism, my naïve view was that mathematical claims (the correct ones) were true in a different way to empirical claims (the correct ones). Before long though, under the influence of Tarski, the basic model theory I was teaching in Logic 1, etc. I came to reject that view. Truth had to do with satisfaction in the Tarskian sense which required a domain of objects to do the satisfying. Recently though I came across this passage from Huw Price:

[W]e need to distinguish the notion of keeping track as something that we do within the assertoric language game – a notion constituted, within the game, by the fact that the normative structures always hold open the possibility that one’s present commitments will be challenged, so that ‘correctness’ is always in principle beyond the reach of any individual player – from a notion that we might employ from outside the game, in saying that in at least some of its versions its function is to aid the players in keeping track of their physical environment. … [T]here’s a temptation to call both kinds of external constraint ‘truth’, but we shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking we’re dealing with two aspects of sub-species of a single notion of truth. Both notions may be useful, for various theoretical purposes, but we shouldn’t confuse them’ (Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism, 191)

I’m beginning to think that my naïve view might just be the right one. Any assertoric discourse [Could there be a non-assertoric discourse? I’m not sure.] with standards of correctness and incorrectness will need a truth predicate for the sorts of expressive purposes deflationists get excited about. (We need a truth predicate to express commitments without having to state them explicitly. E.g. if a theory \(\Gamma\) entails infinitely many things I can say ‘Everything \(\Gamma\) entails is true’ but I can’t possibly explicitly assert everything entailed by \(\Gamma\)  Hence truth predicates are indispensable for certain expressive purposes.) Mathematical discourse seems like a good candidate for a discourse that’s governed by internal rather than external standards. In empirical matters the world gets to answer back: we bump up against the world, probe it, test it experimentally. But mathematical investigations don’t involve interactions with mathematical objects, they involve proofs. Of course the results of these investigations can surprise us or be counterintuitive. But none of that requires an external world of mathematical objects; only that the normative structures constituted within the game ‘hold open the possibility that one’s present commitments will be challenged, so that ‘correctness’ is always in principle beyond the reach of any individual player’. Objectivity doesn’t require objects. Moreover, as I’ve argued before there’s good reason to think that the norms of correctness and incorrectness of mathematical discourse are internal, rather than external, in the senses above.

Horwich and Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy

In a recent book, Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy, Paul Horwich defends (as the title might lead one to expect) a Wittgensteinian metaphilosophy which opposes the idea that philosophical thinking can lead us to surprising, substantive metaphysical results, and accords good philosophy the more deflationary role of dissipating confusions. This is a view I find attractive and plausible. According to Horwich, Wittgenstein’s metaphilosophy involves the claim that within the domain of philosophy:

There are no surprising discoveries to be made of facts, inaccessible through the methods of science, yet discoverable ‘from the armchair’ by means of some blend of pure thought, contemplation, and conceptual analysis. (Wittgenstein’s Metaphilosophy, 1–2)

Philosophical problems arise from 'bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language’. This typically involves overgeneralisation: applying some principle, which is locally valid in some domains, where it doesn’t belong:

[A] common way for us to be mislead by language, according to Wittgenstein, is that when we see a noun appearing as the subject of a true sentence, we expect there to be a thing to which the noun refers. This expectation comes from reflection on countless statements such as

- Neptune is a planet

- Boston has subways

- Plato taught philosophy

which suggest a universal underlying semantic structure for all sentences of that simple syntactic type: the subject, a noun phrase, picks out a particular object in the world, and the rest of the sentence denotes some property or characteristic attributed to that object. (ibid. 11)

Now, all this sounds great for the nominalist. Here is a nice way to diagnose how philosophers erroneously arrive at platonism: we expect, by overgeneralising on some paradigmatic cases, that whenever nouns feature in true sentences there are things to which the nouns refer. But mathematical language isn’t like this—that isn’t it purpose, mathematical standards of correctness and incorrectness haven’t to do with accurately depicting an abstract mathematical realm, etc.—we have simply overgeneralised from the paradigmatic representational use of language. Having diagnosed this overgeneralisation we are free to see that platonism is unmotivated, and adopt nominalism accordingly.

This isn’t what Horwich does though—he’s a staunch anti-nominalist. Why? I think the answer lies not in Horwich’s philosophy, but in the “pre-philosophical” convictions he brings to it. Horwich talks about this deflationary metaphilosophy allowing us to retain the ‘naïve idea that numbers are abstract objects [and] our naïve aspiration to discover what is true about them’ (ibid. 16). Horwich was a pre-philosophical platonist, so his belief that philosophy could not produce surprising, substantive metaphysical results leads him to believe that it cannot overturn platonism. I, on the other hand, was a pre-philosophical nominalist; so the self-same belief that philosophy cannot produce surprising, substantive metaphysical results leads me to think that the existence of mathematical objects can’t be discovered by philosophical means.

I wonder if the lesson here is that the platonism-nominalist debate is irresolvable by philosophical means. I wonder, but I’m not sure; and that’s because even some of our pre-philosophical convictions can arise from the sorts of confusions that good philosophy can dissolve. In this case, I think that attention to mathematical-linguistic practice could plausibly show that it’s not in the business of depicting an extant mathematical realm; but that’s a story for another day.

The norms of mathematical discourse and inquiry

David Lewis once (influentially) commented that it would be ludicrous to expect mathematicians to change their ways on the basis of philosophical arguments that mathematical objects don’t exist. Why he thought mathematical practices would have to be emended in the light of ontological facts about the existence of mathematical objects, I’m not sure.

Here’s a thought experiment to make explicit your own implicit commitments about this. Imagine that, instead of a philosopher, an infallible oracle told the world that mathematical objects don’t exist. Would mathematics professors be obliged to hand in their resignations? Would their discipline have been exposed as a sham?

I think the answer to these questions is a, very obvious, “no”, and I suspect that almost everyone would agree. But notice what that means. If we don’t accept that mathematical practices ought to change in light of word from an infallible oracle that mathematical objects don’t exist, then we must also accept that the norms governing mathematical discourse are not representational, in the robust sense of that word as pertaining to mapping, tracking or picturing how things stand with a domain of mathematical objects. The standards of correctness and incorrectness in mathematics do not derive from mathematical objects, but from standards internal to the game (or perhaps “game”) of mathematics itself.

Call this view normative nominalism. But if one is committed to normative nominalism (as a “no” answer to the above questions would reveal), then what could possibly be the motivation for platonism?

Wright on Deflationism

I’m reading Crispin Wright’s Truth and Objectivity for a reading group at the moment, where he sums up an argument against deflationism about truth in the following way (I quote at length):

The deflationist holds that “true”, although gramatically a predicate, denotes no substantial quality of statements, or thoughts, but is merely a device of assertoric endorsement, of use to us only because we sometimes wish so to endorse a single statement, referred to in a way which doesn’t specify it’s content, or batches of statements all at once. Apart from applications of those two kinds, it is, for the deflationist, a complete explanation of the truth predicate that it satisfies the Disquotational Schema. It is a consequence of this general conception of the role of the truth predicate that it can register no norm governing assertoric discourse distinct from warranted assertibility. Yet the central place assigned to the Disquotational Schema—and thereby to the Negation Equivalence—actually clashes with that consequence, for it follows that, while normative of assertoric discourse, and indeed coincident in (positive prescriptive) normative force with warranted assertibility, “true” is nevertheless potentially extensionally divergent from warranted assertibility—and hence has to be accounted as registering a distinct such norm. Since it’s compliance or non-compliance with a norm distinct from assertoric warrant can hardly be an “insubstantial”property of a statement, and since a uniform account is possible of what it is for any particular statement so to comply, deflationism collapses. (pp. 71–2)

For reference, the Disquotational Schema is:

(DS) “P” is T is and only if P

One can’t, without engaging in a kind of doublethink, say or believe things like ‘P and it is not warrantedly assertible that P’ for some proposition P, since you can rationally assert P if and only if it is warrantedly assertible (for you) that P. But truth can be used to contrast with warranted assertibility. Take (DS) and substitute ‘It is not the case that P’ for P:

(i) ‘It is not the case that P’ is T is and only if it is not the case that P.

From (i) and (DS) one can infer:

(ii) It is not the case that P if and only if it is not the case that ‘P’ is T.

And from (i) and (ii) you get:

(iii) ‘It is not the case that P’ is T if and only if it is not the case that ‘P’ is T.

But (iii) cannot be right if T means warrantedly assertible, so ‘true’ registers a norm distinct from warranted assertibility. Deflationism is the view that ‘true’ just is a devise of assertoric endorsement, and Wright thinks that a mere devise of assertoric endorsement couldn’t register a norm distinct from warranted assertibility, so deflationism must be false.

But there is a way to register the truth norm without using the truth predicate. One can say ‘P and it is not warrantedly assertible for S that P’ or ‘¬P and it is warrantedly assertible for S that P’ where S is some person other than yourself, and in doing so can register the truth norm without using the truth predicate. What is required is that one contrasts one’s own perspective with that of another. Registering the truth norm requires some kind of I-Thou contrast. If that’s the case then ‘true’ is not what, fundamentally, allows one to register the truth norm contrasting with the norm of warranted assertibility, and deflationism is off the hook.

I think this might tap into something deep about objectivity—more specifically, our ability to see the world as being objective or to conceptualise there being objective facts that outstrip our ability to know them—as it coheres with something Robert Brandom says about objectivity. Brandom (I won’t spell out the details here) also argues that conceptualising objectivity requires I-Thou relationships. This is made explicit in paradigmatically referential of-statements like ‘He believes of this criminal that he is an innocent man.’ Understanding “of” requires navigating between one’s own perspective and that of another. Since “of” is how we refer objectively to the world, talking (and hence thinking) about the world objectively requires navigating between one’s own perspective and that of another.

Why I really hope we vote no on Thursday

Maybe I’m odd this way, but I love Britain. I love Britain because it has a kind of contrapuntal brilliance—the way the craggy summits of the Munroes perfectly compliment the gentle pastures of Cambridgeshire, and Edinburgh stands like a poised and dignified sister to exuberant, thrumming London. And I love Britain because the rest of the UK isn’t Westminster—it’s J.R.R. Tolkein, and The Wind in the Willows, and Radiohead, and Wallace and Gromit, and Stewart Lee, and Viz, and Bertrand Russell, and Ant and Dec, and my cherubic little nephew.

I believe in many of the things that have made breaking away from the UK seem attractive to a lot of people: essentially the benefits of political localism—a political class that is close to, and so responsive to, the needs and concerns of the constituents they serve. The thing is, that all these things could be achieved, without the damage involved in breaking up the union, through devo max. Not only that, devo max is the democratically mandated option; it’s what most Scottish people actually want. Far better that than the division we’ll have within Scotland if we permanently break away from the UK on the basis of a tiny majority of separatists. Moreover, it’s an option that’s on the table if and only if we vote no in the upcoming election.

This isn’t primarily why I’m voting no, because I would vote no even if devo max wasn’t on the table. It’s not primarily for economic reasons either, although I would by no means dismiss these as somehow crass or “not what’s really important”. Questions about the economy just are questions about how the most vulnerable in our society will fare. They’re also questions about how my family will fare. If the dire warnings about recession, the flight of business, the disaster of shared currency without political union and mortgage rates skyrocketing are even close to true, breaking up the union might mean losing our home.

But the fundamental reason I’m voting no isn’t economic, because I would vote no even if the economic consequences of separation weren’t so grim. It’s not economic because even if, by some miracle, we were sitting on an oil bonanza, I wouldn’t, for one moment, resent it paying for someone’s medical treatment in Yorkshire, or Liverpool, or wherever. The reason I'm voting no has to do with the value of unity itself. People within a nation state have differing political, religious and ethical convictions. A nation state is held together by bonds of mutual trust, solidarity and coöperation that somehow transcend these things. Just look to Iraq, Syria or any other truly dysfunctional states to see that these coöperative bonds are not natural necessities but deeply contingent, and deeply valuable. A united kingdom is a precious and hard-won achievement, and it would be a terrible waste to throw that away by choice. Salmond’s convinced many of us that the SNP are somehow progressive visionaries. That’s what his well-greased rhetoric is designed to suggest anyway, though the facts don’t match the bluster. Unionists are voting for unity, separatists are, in practice, voting for the opposite.  Scots have always been cosmopolitan and internationalist in outlook, and have always used Britain to make our mark in the world.  But if we break up the UK and sever the unique bonds of coöperation that link compatriots, we will, in a very real, very concrete way, be making Scotland a less inclusive, less open and more parochial place. That’s the politics of division, and that’s why I really hope we say no to it on Thursday.

Is nominalism self-defeating?

Here's an objection to nominalism I've heard a few times.  Sometimes the 'access problem' to abstract objects is motivated by the idea that embodied creatures adapted to a particular environment, such as ourselves, need to interact with the world in order to gain knowledge of what it's like.  If we're to learn something about a given domain of objects, at some point we will require some kind of causal interaction with at least some members of that domain of objects.  Abstract objects, such as mathematical objects, are not like this: there is no method by which we could interact with anything in a domain of abstract objects at any time.  As a result, even if abstract objects exist, there is no means by which we could come to gain knowledge of which abstract objects exist or what properties they have.  This kind of minimal causal condition for knowledge is sometimes called the (or a) "eleatic principle".  But it's sometimes said that this eleatic principle is self-defeating.  Here's Sorin Bangu in his nice book The Applicability of Mathematics in Science (pp.18-9):

My naturalist’s reaction to the reformulated [eleatic principle] challenge is to point out that it is ultimately self-defeating.  That is, the naturalist notes that one cannot even formulate the challenge without actually making appeal to mathematics: one simply can’t grasp what the new naturalized [eleatic principle] actually says unless one understands the physical theories describing the abovementioned types of interactions.  But these theories are, of course, thoroughly mathematical!  So, anyone attempting to advance a challenge of the [eleatic principle] type in naturalistically acceptable terms finds herself engaged in the self-undermining enterprise of rejecting the very (mathematical) terms which allow the (acceptable naturalistic version of the) challenge to be meaningfully formulated in the first place.

This criticism seems wrong to me, on two counts.  Firstly, it ignores responses to the indispensability argument.  The nominalist will need some response to the indispensability argument.  If this response doesn't work then the nominalist is in trouble anyway.  If it does work—whether it involves doing without reference to or quantification over mathematical objects in scientific theories, like Field, Chihara etc., or offering some account of why it's acceptable for the nominalist to continue to refer to or quantify over mathematical objects in scientific theories, like Leng—then it will work here too: that we give mathematical models of how we (concrete) creatures interact with (concrete) parts of the world will pose no special problems.  Secondly, even in lieu of a response to the indispensability argument, the eleatic principle can be used to give a sort of reductio of mathematical platonism: (i) assume mathematical platonism is true, (ii) motivate the eleatic principle, (iii) our own mathematicized theories which describe how we interact with the world show that we cannot have knowledge of mathematical objects. So the assumption we began with is unknowable and rationally self-defeating.

What I talk about when I talk about numbers

Here is a valid argument:

(1) The number of Front national MEPS is worrying. 

(2) The number of Front national MEPS is 24. 

(3) 24 is worrying.

At least it’s valid if you think, as almost all philosophers who think about mathematical language seem to, that (2) refers to a number.  Contrast (2) with

(2*) There are 24 Front national MEPS.

(2*) is a statement about Front national MEPS, but (2) and (2*) are treated as being equivalent; not in the sense that they have the same meaning (one refers only to a political party, the other refers to a number) but in the sense that given (2) we can always infer (2*) and given (2*) we can always infer (2).  We can do this because we accept the abstraction principle:

(*) There are n Fs if and only if the number of Fs is n.

I’m not sure what to make of this.  I used to think that claims like (2*) were true because they predicate a property of something real, whereas claims like (2) were literally false because they make reference to something that doesn’t really exist—a number.  Making inferences using (literally false) claims like (2) was, I thought, fine, because doing so wouldn’t lead us astray with respect to how things stood with what really existed.  Similarly we could accept (*), not as being literally true, but as being “nominalistically adequate”, i.e. unable to lead us astray with respect to how things stand with what really existed.  (Compare: we accept ‘There is a dent in the car’ not because dents really exist or because they are an extra bit of the furniture of reality over and above the car, but because saying this doesn’t lead us astray with respect to the topographical properties of the car.)  But here is a problem with this: (3) is absurd.  A convenient fiction that aids inference-making is one thing; an absurd convenient fiction that aids inference-making is something else.  This is disastrous for the platonist who thinks that numbers really exist.  For the platonist (3) is true.  But it’s also bad news for the fictionalist who accepts that (2) refers (or at least purports to refer) to a number, because although fictionalist take (3) to be false, they’re still left with a problem: (3) isn’t even nominalistically adequate.  (3) can be used to infer falsehoods about the concrete world:

(3) 24 is worrying. 

(4) The number of Tunnock’s Teacakes in a four-pack is 24. 

(5) The number of Tunnock’s Teacakes in a four-pack is worrying.

(5) is about the concrete world and is false.  Maybe the only option is to drop the claim that phrases of the form ‘The number of Fs is n refer to the number n.  In this case the ‘is’ can’t be the ‘is’ of identity; the phrase can’t mean ‘The number of Fs = n’.

Death and the continuousness of time

Sometimes philosophy is a life and death matter. Let's say that time is continuous; i.e. that it can be represented by the real number line. The real number line is dense:


\[(\forall x \in \mathbb{R}) (\forall y \in \mathbb{R})(x <y \rightarrow (\exists z \in \mathbb{R}) (x < z <y))\]

For any two real numbers there is another real number on the line between them. This means that no two real numbers can be "touching"—there will always be another (in fact infinitely many) real numbers between them. And if time can be represented by the real number line then time is also like this; for any two points in time t_i, t_j such that t_i < t_i, there is another point in time t_k such that t_i < t_k < t_j. No two points in time can be touching—there will always be another (in fact infinitely many) points in time between them.

Now, at some time t₁ a person S is alive and at some later time t₂ S is dead. If no two points in time can be touching then there will be a period of time in which S is neither alive nor dead. This can be avoided by saying that life and death overlap; that there is a point at which S, in the manner of Schrödinger's cat, is both alive and dead, but both options seem like nonsense.

Is this a paradox? Perhaps not, or perhaps at least not a very deep one. I think the thing to say here is that the boundary between life and death is vague (though maybe there are reasons further down the line to think this could not be the case). If vagueness is the way out though, there is still a problem for those who hold an epistemic theory of vagueness. If vagueness is epistemic—if there is a definite boundary between life and death, but we just don't know exactly where it lies—then the problem just reappears.

Propositions cannot exist

What a proposition is, or is supposed to be, can be grasped through abstraction principles. An abstraction principle is something of the form:

\[\forall \alpha \forall \beta (\Sigma(\alpha) = \Sigma(\beta) \leftrightarrow \alpha \sim \beta \]

Where \(\Sigma \) is an appropriate term-forming operator and \(\sim \) an equivalence relation. In the case of propositions, the abstraction principle will be something like:

The proposition expressed by u₁ = the proposition expressed by u₂ if and only if the content of u₁ is the same as the content of u₂

where u_i are appropriate tokenings such as utterances or inscriptions. A proposition is what is expressed by a sentence, written or spoken, and, furthermore, propositions are taken to be truth-bearers: they are the sorts of things that can be true or false. All this tells us that propositions are intentional entities: they are about or of the world; they pertain to things, and so on. The problem for propositions arises when one starts to consider what intentionality consists in, or what it is for something to be about, to be of, or to pertain to the world. It’s often (rightly) said that whatever aboutness propositions or sentence tokens have must be derivative from the fundamental intentionality associated with intentional agents. But something stronger can be said. Being about something essentially requires being responsible to that thing—not, it is worth emphasising, be responsive to a thing: lumps of wax are responsive to heat but are not about heat, thoughts about things outside our light cone are not responsive to those things but are about them; something different is required. If I think about the Empty Quarter I make my thinking responsible to the Empty Quarter itself. If I think of the Empty Quarter that it is the largest expanse of sand in the world then my thinking goes wrong—is subject to negative normative assessment—if it is not the largest expanse of sand in the world, and my thinking goes right—is subject to positive normative assessment—if it is the largest expanse of sand in the world. This isn’t an accidental feature of intentionality, it’s an essential one. So the only entities that can be about things are those that can be responsible to those things. Only persons are responsible in this way, abstract objects like propositions can’t be. But propositions are defined as things which are about the world; the result being that propositions would have to possess an essential property they cannot possibly have. Propositions then, cannot exist.

Softening the Blow of Truth Fictionalism

In the last post I said that mathematical fictionalism has consequences that sound terrible, but really aren't worrisome at all, when you think about what they actually entail. Something similar could be said about alethic fictionalism, or fictionalism about truth. Consider the truth predicate.  It’s a widely held view that the purpose of having a truth predicate is to allow people to undertake commitments to certain claims without having to explicitly state those claims.  So, if a theory $\Gamma$ entails infinitely many claims that you want to endorse, you can say ‘Everything entailed by $\Gamma$ is true', rather than explicitly state every claim entailed by $\Gamma$, which would be impossible.  So the job of the truth predicate isn’t to ascribe a special property, TRUTH, to things, but to allow us to undertake commitments without having to articulate those commitments explicitly.

Nevertheless, you could consistently hold that, even though what explains why we have a truth predicate has nothing to do with ascribing the property TRUTH to things, the meaning of a predicate is always to ascribe a property to something.  And if, in addition, you held that there is no such property as TRUTH, then you would end up being a fictionalist about truth discourse.  Any claim of the form ' $\phi$ is true’ would be false, since nothing has the property of truth.  But this wouldn’t really matter, since the truth predicate would still allow us to do what it was designed to do.  (It would, however, sound like a really bad result.)

Softening the Blow of Mathematical Fictionalism

Mathematical fictionalists are representationalists about mathematical discourse.  Not (necessarily) in the sense that they think that the meaning of mathematical sentences is to be understood in terms of reference or truth-making relations—mathematical fictionalists might be, and often are, deflationists about truth and reference—but rather in the sense that they take mathematical discourse to describe mathematical objects.  If someone claims there are 88 narcissistic numbers in base ten then the content of this claim has to do with the way it stands with a domain of things.  Mathematical discourse is descriptive rather than, say, expressivist.  Mathematical fictionalists also think that mathematical objects don’t exist, and hence the claims that there are 88 narcissistic numbers in base ten, which mathematicians accept, are, strictly and literally speaking, false.

This is usually enough to put people off mathematical fictionalism; even if the arguments for the position seem well founded enough, the conclusion that mathematical claims are, strictly and literally speaking, false (or trivially true if, e.g., they make universal negative claims such as “there are no positive integers x, y and z such that x3 + y3 = z3”, or form the antecedent of a conditional claim) will be too much to bear.  That modus ponens from fictionalism to the falsehood of mathematical claims will always seem like a modus tollens against fictionalism.

But the function of a discourse—the reason that we go in for this kind of discourse in the first place—needn’t determine the meaning of that discourse.  So, a discourse can be representational, in the above sense, but it might exist in order to serve a purpose other than representing the way things are with the world.  There are many things we can do with language, other than picture the world as being a particular way.

The “blow” of fictionalism isn’t really a blow at all, so long as we think the following things:  Mathematical discourse is representational, but the point or purpose of engaging in mathematics is not to describe or picture how things stand with a realm of mathematical objects.  Moreover, mathematicians have objective standards of rightness and wrongness that determine which mathematical statements are correct or incorrect.  So although mathematical claims may be strictly false in the sense that they do not picture how things stand with a realm of abstract objects, this is wholly orthogonal to the goals of mathematics.  Here’s the litmus test: When you describe fictionalism replace every instance of “is true” with “correctly describes how things stand with a realm of abstract objects” and “is false” with “does not correctly describe how things stand with a realm of abstract objects”.  How bad does fictionalism sound now?

Your Mother and Modal Epistemology

Here is a problem with modal conditions on knowledge, as traditionally understood.  Some of the beliefs we form pertain to things that our own existence is ontologically dependent on.  Consider the following scenario:  

Two people, Timothy and Titus, look at a photograph of a woman and form the belief  She existed at some point.  Neither, let us suppose, know anything about the person in the photograph, however, as it happens, she is the mother of Timothy.

Were the belief false, Timothy would not exist.  As a result, in the closest world(s) in which the belief is false Timothy fails to form the belief, and there are no close worlds in which Timothy believes that proposition in which it is not true.  So Timothy’s belief is both sensitive and safe (according to traditional construals of sensitivity and safety), and necessarily so.  Yet, depending on contingent background facts about the photograph, there are situations in which Titus’s belief fails to be sensitive or safe.  So, according to traditional accounts of safety and sensitivity, the epistemic status of Timothy and Titus’s beliefs are different, but, according to common sense, this is not the case.

More on Sensitivity and Closure

Traditionally, sensitivity theorists deny closure.  In the last post I suggested that some anti-sceptical beliefs (e.g. I am not a BIV) which are often taken to be non-sensitive, are in fact sensitive, when the sensitivity condition is parsed so as to take into account belief-forming methods. This though doesn’t mean that there might not be some, more elaborately contrived, beliefs in which closure would fail, even given a version of sensitivity that takes into account belief-forming methods.

But closure failure could be avoided if we adopted a disjunctive account of knowledge, whereby knowledge is either sensitively formed true belief, or belief that is soundly inferred from a sensitively formed true belief.  Oftentimes disjunctive explanations (or disjunctive proofs) are seen as being less explanatory than non-disjunctive counterparts (as they are less unifying), but there is some virtue in this disjunctive account of knowledge.  It does justice to the holistic nature of our beliefs.  Beliefs, taken individually, may lack sensitivity or responsiveness to the world, but may constitute knowledge because of the way they are apperceptively integrated into a wider whole, of which some parts are appropriately responsive to the world.  It is well-known that coherentist constraints on knowledge, taken on their own, leave out the important thought that beliefs that constitute knowledge must in some sense be responsive to reality (“frictionless spinning in the void” and all that); but modal constraints on knowledge, taken on their own, may also leave out the important role that coherence-making relationships have with respect to knowledge.  It may be that both kinds of consideration must be built into an account of knowledge, but that neither can be understood in terms of the other.  In which case, a disjunctive account of knowledge would be in order.

Sensitivity and Closure

Kelly Becker, in his book Epistemology Modalized, gives a nice modal account of knowledge:

S knows that p iff:

1. p is true
2. S believes that p
3. S’s belief that p is formed by a belief-forming process or methodw that produces a high ratio of true beliefs in the actual world and throughout close possible worlds (reliability condition).
4. If p were false, S would not believe that p via the methodn S actually uses in forming the belief that p (sensitivity condition). (Epistemology Modalized, p.88)

Methodsw are individuated very narrowly, but not so narrowly as to include specific belief contents.  Specific belief contents are however included in methodsn.  Becker individuates a methodw as the narrowest specific-content-neutral method or process that is causally operative in belief formation.  An example of a methodw might be forming beliefs about which people are in the vicinity based on quick looks in at least dim lighting.  A methodn on the other hand might be something like If what I am looking at now has short legs and floppy ears (and such and so other features) then it’s a dachshund.

Becker also makes a serious and interesting case against closure under known entailment, and he takes it, as epistemologists generally do, that sensitivity is incompatible with closure:

The sensitivity component of our theory somehow predicts this result – I do not know not-[sceptical hypothesis] because, if it were false, I would believe it anyway. (Epistemology Modalized, p.120)

But in fact, it isn’t clear that his account of sensitivity is incompatible with closure.  Take a standard BIV case.  I believe I am not a BIV, yet 4 holds: if I was a BIV I would not believe that I was not a BIV via the methodn I actually use in forming the belief that I am not a BIV.  My method, after all, involves coming to know ordinary propositions about the world around me by interacting with it, and inferring from these ordinary propositions that I am not a BIV.  Since brains in vats cannot employ the same kinds of methods that embodied humans do, my belief that I am not a BIV is sensitive according to Becker’s analysis.

How to Eschew Metaphysics

Here’s how Blackburn describes pragmatism:

You will be a pragmatist about an area of discourse if you pose a Carnapian external question: how does it come about that we go in for this kind of discourse and thought?  What is the explanation of this bit of our language game?  And then you offer an account of what we are up to in going in for this discourse, and the account eschews any use of the referring expressions of the discourse; any appeal to anything that a Quinian would identify as the values of the bound variables if the discourse is regimented; or any semantic or ontological attempt to ‘interpret’ the discourse in a domain, to find referents for its terms, or truth-makers for its sentences … Instead the explanation proceeds by talking in different terms of what is done by so talking.  It offers a revelatory genealogy or anthropology or even a just-so story about how this mode of talking and thinking and practising might come about, given in terms of the functions it serves.  Notice that it does not offer a classical reduction, finding truth-makers in other terms.  It finds whatever plurality of functions it can lay its hands upon. [Simon Blackburn, Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism: 75]

I'm interested in the claim often made by pragmatists, such as Simon Blackburn or Huw Price, that they are eschewing metaphysics, in contrast to platonists, fictionalists, error theorists and the like. Pragmatic accounts of a discourse provide a genealogy, or some consanguineous account, of why it is we go in for this way of talking and, as it may happen, this account may be metaphysically deflationary.  So it may be that the motivation for talking about, say, mathematical objects, does not involve representing how things stand with a domain of mathematical objects.  If there is some such story—if we can account for the uses of mathematical talk, without invoking mathematical objects—then we have an ontologically deflationary pragmatic account of mathematical discourse.

But so far, what’s been said about pragmatic accounts of mathematical discourse is open for the fictionalist to adopt.  The difference between the fictionalist (who is apparently engaged in metaphysics) and the pragmatist (who apparently eschews metaphysics) is that the fictionalist claims that mathematical talk is, strictly speaking, false, whereas the pragmatist does not.

Fictionalists and pragmatists then agree in methodology: provide an account of the usefulness of mathematical (or moral, or possible worlds) discourse that makes the existence of mathematical (or moral, or modal) objects orthogonal to the practice.  Their point of divergence is not methodological or ontological, but semantic: whether one opts for fictionalism or pragmatism depends on what one takes the meaning of existential quantification to be.  Here, the pragmatist reads the pragmatic purpose of quantification over mathematical objects back into the semantics of quantification over mathematical objects, and the fictionalist does not.  A truism: people can engage in ontological disputes.  There is something at stake between someone who claims that the Higgs boson exists and someone who claims that it does not, or between someone who claims that God exists and someone who claims that he does not.  The interlocutors in these debates are in disagreement over what the world is like.  So, sometimes at least, quantificational talk is used to express disagreements about what the world is like.  Ultimately then, the difference between the fictionalist and the pragmatist lies in what they take the meaning of existential quantification to be.  Fictionalists take existential quantification to be univocal: it always expresses claims about what the world is like.  Pragmatists (are committed to) taking existential quantification to be multivocal: within discourses whose purpose is to describe the world existential quantification expresses claims about what the world is like; within discourses whose purpose is not to describe the world, existential quantification does not express claims about what the world is like. (Note that the point of divergence is not, or need not be, over semantic minimalism. The person engaged in metaphysics need not couch what he is doing in terms of finding truth-makers or referents to be relata in substantive relations of truth or reference to given sentences; he can simply couch what she is doing in terms of whether such and such objects exist. Hartry Field is a case in point.)  

The take-away claim: whether one gets to eschew metaphysics depends on whether existential quantification is univocal or multivocal.

Kant and the Necessary 3-Dimensionality of Space

Here’s a thought.  Kant took it to be necessary that space was 3-dimensional.  Bracketing the possibility that space is transcendentally ideal for the moment—of course, you might think I’m bracketing the most interesting thing here—most people who are paid to think about these things now reject the necessary 3-dimensionality of space on the grounds that spaces with more dimensions are possible, and the standard argument for this is the following.  A 3-dimensional space can be modelled as $\mathbb{R}^3$ = $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} $ with each n-tuple representing a point in 3-dimensional space.  Methods of this sort allow for higher-dimensional spaces to be represented, since extending or generalizing the model to represent higher-dimensional spaces is quite straightforward. 4 dimensional space is represented as $\mathbb{R}^4$, 5-dimensional space as $\mathbb{R}^5$, and so on.

But why think a thing like this constitutes grounds for taking higher-dimensional spaces to be metaphysically possible?  Why think that because a model of 3-dimensional space can be extended in this sort of way (and remain coherent), higher-dimensional spaces themselves are possible, or even coherent?  Why think that because (i) there is a space which can be represented using $\mathbb{R}^3$, and (ii) there is nothing in consistent about $\mathbb{R}^4$, that (iii) there could be a space that is represented by $\mathbb{R}^4$?  Now, there may be other good reasons to think that (iii) is true, but the standard argument looks to be enthymematic at best.

[Cross-posted at Kant and Laws]

Is naturalism coherent?

Here is how Huw Price characterises naturalism in a recent book, although I think it’s a characterisation that many philosophers would endorse:

What is philosophical naturalism?  Most fundamentally, presumably, it is the view that natural science properly constrains philosophy, in the following sense.  The concerns of the two disciplines are not simply disjointed, and science takes the lead where the two overlap.  At the very least, then, to be a philosophical naturalist is to believe that philosophy is not simply a different enterprise from science, and that philosophy should defer to science, where the concerns of the two disciplines coincide. [Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism: 3]

But in what sense is it possible for philosophy to defer to science?  One way we might think this could go is in the following scenario: we have in our possession, say, both a successful scientific theory which posits backwards causation, and an a priori philosophical argument that backwards causation is impossible.  Deferring to science—which is an essential trait of naturalism, as understood above—involves accepting the scientific theory and rejecting the philosophical argument as (somehow) unsound.  But there is a problem with thinking of this as philosophical deference to science (as opposed to some other kind of deference to science).  Consider the maxim: When a claim of a successful scientific theory conflicts with the conclusion of an a priori argument, reject the conclusion of the a priori argument in favour of the claim of the successful scientific theory.  This is, on any reasonable measure, a philosophical dictum rather than the claim of a scientific theory.  In which case, someone who follows the maxim is being guided by a philosophical dictum rather than the claim of a scientific theory.  Moreover—although I’m not really arguing for this latter claim here—it is plausible that any adjudicative maxim of this kind would be philosophical rather than scientific per se; and in that case, it wouldn’t make sense to say that philosophy could defer to science.