Semantic Inferentialism and the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

My Philosophy Compass article ‘Semantic Inferentialism and the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism’ now looks like it’s been published online.  Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism has provoked a huge literature since it first began being discussed, but none of the prominent responses to it have, to my mind, been convincing.  In this paper however, I argue that semantic inferentialists, of the Brandomian sort, aren’t subject to the kind of considerations that motivate the argument.  Enjoy!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12062/abstract

Dialetheism for cheap?

It’s easy to “make” a new truth.  I can define the term busy* thusly:

For any x, x is busy* iff it contains more than five items.

Given this definition it is true that the room I am currently in is busy*.  I can define another term busy** thusly:

For any x,

(1) x is busy** if it contains five items or more, and

(2) it is not the case that x is busy** if it contains seven items or fewer.

Now consider a room containing six items; it is both true and false that the room is busy**.  Clearly the concept of busyness** is inconsistent, yet the sentence ‘This room is busy**’ seems to express a proposition—inconsistent claims are not unintelligible in virtue of their inconsistency.  Since the claim expresses a proposition it has a truth value, and in cases where ‘this room’ designates a room containing six items, the claim will be both true and false.

Now, we might not be too worried about inconsistencies of this sort, since they involve no worldly contradiction—there is nothing inconsistent or incoherent about a room containing six items—only the deployment of inconsistent concepts.  Yet, so long as some sentence or proposition is both true and false—regardless of whether this involve a worldly contradiction)—then, in classical logic, by the misnomed (yes, that is a word) ex falso quodlibet, it follows that every sentence or proposition is true, which is absurd.  As such, cheap dialetheism of this sort is sufficient to show that we must reject classical logic in favour of a relevance logic.

It seems to me something must be wrong with this argument, but I’m not sure what.

Respect and transitivity

The relation over the set of philosophers x respects the work of y is not transitive.

The Inverse Indispensability Argument

Most philosophers take it that the truth term plays the role of a predicate.  Since predicates denote properties this provides prima facie reason to think that truth is a property; many claims that we take to be correct appear to be ascriptions of a truth property to sentences or propositions.  However, as Quine famously pointed out, we would require the truth predicate for certain expressive functions—viz. undertaking commitments without the need to express them explicitly—whether or not there is a property of truth, and this fact constitutes an undercutting defeater for the prima facie reason to think that truth is a property.  In other words, the indispensability of a truth predicate (for purposes other than attributing a property of truth to sentences) undercuts the reason to think that ‘is true’ denotes a property.

Mathematical talk refers to quantifies over abstract mathematical objects.  Since referring terms denotes objects, mathematical talk provides prima facie reason to think that mathematical objects exist.; many claims that we take to be correct appear to be descriptions of an abstract realm of mathematical objects.   However, we would require reference (or apparent reference) to mathematical objects in order to describe concrete systems (in order to model physical phenomena mathematically) whether or not there are mathematical objects, and this fact constitutes an undercutting defeater for the prima facie reason to think that there are mathematical objects.  In other words, the indispensability of mathematics (for purposes other than describing a realm of abstract mathematical objects) undercuts the reason to think that mathematical terms denote extant abstract mathematical objects.

Two Kinds of Indispensability Argument

Continuing on the theme of nominalism and pragmatism…

The Putnam of yore took it that mathematical objects exist and is credited along with Quine as being an early proponent of the indispensability argument.  There are though two very different kinds of indispensability argument that Putnam made.  The first runs like this:

[Q]uantification over mathematical entities is indispensable for science, both formal and physical; therefore we should accept such quantification; but this commits us to accepting the existence of the mathematical entities in question.  This type of argument stems, of course, from Quine, who has for years stressed both the indispensability of quantification over mathematical entities and the intellectual dishonesty of denying the existence of what one daily presupposes. [Philosophy of Logic: 347]

Why be a platonist?  Because, according to the argument, nominalism is inconsistent with physics.  One big problem with the argument is that there is plenty that gets quantified over in the sciences that we don’t take to exist; especially idealised versions of physical systems, the stock examples being frictionless surfaces, continuous fluids and the like.  So nominalism’s being “inconsistent with physics” in this sense isn’t a big deal, since the (clearly true) claims that fluids are not continuous, that there are no frictionless planes etc. are also “inconsistent with physics”.  (Penelope Maddy in Naturalism in Mathematics and Mary Leng in Mathematics and Reality both make this kind of point.)

Putnam also made a very different kind of indispensability argument, often conflated with the first, that goes like this:

I believe that the positive argument for realism has an analogue in the case of mathematical realism.  Here too, I believe, realism is the only philosophy that doesn’t make a success of science a miracle.  [Philosophy of Logic: 73]

There is an important shift from looking flatly to what entities are quantified over in our best scientific theories to looking at what quantification over these entities can be used to achieve.  This pragmatic spin is in fact necessary because quantification over mathematical objects is not indispensable simpliciter (if such a notion even makes sense), but indispensable for certain ends.  We could do without quantification over mathematical objects; we might just also have to do without iPhones, air travel and so on, if we did.  As Sellars famously said (in ‘A Semantical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem’) ‘[c]learly human beings could dispense with all discourse, though only at the expense of having nothing to say’.  So, if the indispensability of quantification over mathematical objects is supposed to be a problem for nominalism, it must be because talk of mathematical objects must be made use of to achieve certain ends; in which case what is at issue are mathematical practices.  The best explanation for the success of mathematical practices must involve the existence of mathematical objects, or so the thought goes.  But here’s the kicker: mathematical objects, because they are acausal, changeless and not subject to any events, cannot be invoked to explain any practices.  So the best explanation of the success of science needn’t invoke mathematical objects.

Horwich vs. Nominalism

In a recent exchange with Huw Price (Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism) Paul Horwich makes an 11-point case against nominalism (he calls this a case against naturalism, but it seems to be nominalism in particular that is being targeted).  The argument is quite condensed, but it provides a nice summary of why (I think) so many philosophers embrace some form of platonism (or 'anti-nominalism' for those who prefer the apophatic formulation) as well as why (I think) the case against nominalism goes awry.

Firstly, there is the purported motivation for nominalism (for 'naturalism' read 'nominalism'):

1. Naturalism rests on the impression that non-natural facts would be intolerably weird. 

2. That impression has three sources: first, the singular practical and explanatory importance of naturalistic facts; second the very broad scope of the naturalistic order – the striking range and diversity of the facts that it demonstrably encompasses; and, third, the feeling that reality must 'surely' be fundamentally uniform – so all facts must be naturalistic. [EPR: 124-5]

This theme is continued:

6. The committed naturalist will not be greatly perturbed by the accusation that [his defence of naturalism is] ad hoc, contrived and intrinsically implausible.  For he will reason that although such defects may indeed be present, and are indeed unwelcome in themselves, they are a price well worth paying for the wonderfully simple metaphysics that naturalism provides. [EPR: 125]

Now, perhaps some nominalists really are motivated by metaphysical simplicity, and for some reason take simple pictures of reality to be intrinsically more plausible than complicated ones; but nominalists don't, as a matter of habit, primarily motivate their view  by appealing to any metaphysical claims of this kind.  On the contrary, the most prominent  defenders of nominalism, such as Field or Leng, object to platonism on epistemological grounds.  Knowledge of abstract (and hence acausal) objects is problematic because the existence or non-existence of mind-independent abstract objects can make no difference to any grounds one might have for believing in them.  Since the existence of abstract objects has no consequences for anything could possibly take place it seems impossible in principle to (i) provide justificatory grounds for belief in abstract objects, or even (ii) provide some hardcore externalist model of belief in abstract objects that could explain how these beliefs could count as knowledge, even in the absence of justification.  (Note that this applies to indispensability arguments: the indispensability of quantification over mathematical objects in scientific theories does not depend on the existence of a domain of abstract mathematical objects—it is a function of more mundane things, such as the complexity of the concrete systems being modelled and the expressive resources available to the agents doing the modelling.)

The crux of the matter however seems to lie in the pro-case for platonism:

4. Note, to start with, that it's prima facie extremely implausible that amongst the facts we recognise, some are non-natural – for example, that there are numbers […]  An unbiased consideration of such facts will indicate that they aren't naturalistic.  For it's as plain as day (to anyone not 'in the grip of a theory') that they aren't spatio-temporally located, aren't engendered by facts of physics and don't enter into causal/explanatory relations with other facts. 

7. But this apology for naturalism is inaccurate in two related respects.  In the first place, what is given up for its sake is not justly described as 'local theoretical simplicity'.  For what must be denied are data – epistemologically basic convictions.  It is blindingly obvious to us … that Julius Caesar wan't a number. […] And no less obviously false are certain implications of every one of the sceptical 'error theories' (i.e. denials of existence) and strained reductive analyses aimed at safeguarding naturalism from the threats posed by numbers…  

8. And, in the second place, the norm of simplicity, as it is deployed in science, is not in fact a licence to reject recalcitrant data … A scientist is obliged to respect all relevant data, and when they don't conform to a simple pattern, that reality must be accepted. [EPR: 125-6]

The thought that facts about an abstract domain of numbers are simply data, I would hazard a guess, is an important motivation for contemporary platonists, and explains why arguments for nominalism are often simply written off on the grounds that they entail an unacceptable conclusion.  But are we right to see these as data?  Horwich seems to hold that everyone is (or was, at some point) a pre-theoretical platonist, and adopted nominalism for the sake of metaphysical simplicity.  I suggested before that the second part of this claim is false, but the first part is also, at least to some extent, inaccurate.  I for one was a pre-theoretical nominalist: I didn't realise that anyone believed in the existence of numbers until I took a class in metaphysics, and when I made mathematical claims I didn't take the purpose of this practice to reside in describing a domain of abstract objects.  It would be interesting to see some stats on the topic, but at the very least, a number of people don't take facts about an abstract domain of numbers to be data (I've met a few).  So, not everyone has epistemologically basic convictions about the existence of mathematical objects, and to treat these as data is question-begging within the context of this debate.

Besides being question-begging in the current context, there is a kind of hard-line stance against the appeal to "epistemologically basic convictions" of this sort—on the grounds that it is unduly conservative: insulating views from criticism—as articulated, with characteristic understatement, by Kant:

To appeal to ordinary common sense when insight and science run short, and not before, is one of the subtle discoveries of recent times, whereby the dullest windbag can confidently take on the most profound thinker and hold his own with him.  So long as a small residue of insight remains, however, one would do well to avoid resorting to this emergency help.  And seen in the light of day, this appeal is nothing other than a call to the judgement of the multitude; applause at which the philosopher blushes, but which the popular wag becomes triumphant and defiant. [Prolegmonena: 4:259]

Now, Horwich isn't exactly a dull windbag or a popular wag (nor, for that matter, was Reid); and, in any given debate, something will be treated as data, if only temporally, since possessing some common commitments is a precondition of debate in the first place.  So what sorts of things ought one allow as data in the debate between platonists and nominalists?  A plausible supposition is that the division between platonists and nominalists coincides with a division over the kind of things that one allows as data.  Platonists will take the data to be true sentences about mathematical objects, whilst nominalists will take the data to be mathematical practices.  I take it that the latter view is the correct one (and usefully non-question-begging in the context of this debate): what must be accounted for are facts about how (e.g.) solving differential equations and carrying out measurement procedures allows us to track features of and make predictions about concrete systems. This would explain why nominalists (like me) are drawn to nominalism: it is very hard to see how the existence of abstract objects would be required to explain any practice. The take-home claim (that I've not really defended here with any rigour): there are deep connections between nominalism and pragmatist methodology.

Kant and Nomological Necessity

Here are some things I said about Kant and nomological necessity (third comment).