The real world is constantly changing. Human beings' understanding of their own brains is still so superficial that they can hardly talk about the whole real world. I was struck by a passage: "These philosophers reject the scientific idea that social inquiry can reach truths about the real world by means of a single scientific method. "In the pragmatic paradigm, the outcome is all that matters, and the value of the outcome is judged by its validity, not by its consistency with some 'reality' in the real world. Pragmatism's emphasis on "believing one thing is different from another" is more convincing than other paradigms that emphasize the nature of reality and objective truth.
All I can say is, when I'm flying in an airplane I'd want the instruments the pilot is relying on to consistently reflect the "nature of reality and objective truth". When the fuel gauge says "full" the tank had better be full.
The pragmatic paradigm refers to a worldview that focuses on “what works” rather than what might be considered absolutely and objectively “true” or “real.” Early pragmatists rejected the idea that social inquiry using a single scientific method could access truths regarding the real world
The problem nowadays is that social inquiry has extended its reach within the natural sciences, going beyond such issues as knowledge production, and making claims about social construction of content. That may be acceptable for social sciences and some areas of biology, but results in some very weird claims for mathematics, physics, and engineering. What Isam Alkhalifawi says is entirely correct, except that pragmatists did also have a mitigating notion of convergence toward something beyond mere workability as an ideal at "the end of inquiry". Unfortunately nowadays the lines between pragmatists and constructivists have become blurred, and many who profess to be following the pragmatic paradigm have strayed from its basic principles.
It is not difficult to observe the rise of James' 'tough minded' individual while the future is guided by the universal paradigm of nature's capital freedoms. A lie for a profitable good or truth however much it may hurt; there is a moral choice we shy from. I suspect Leibniz was on to something when he spoke of the best of possible worlds. Not merely as surrender to the ineluctable fate of corporeal being but because each life forms a part of common existence and contributes a true and unique effect to the evolutionary process of our shared world making.
Pragmatism is food for thought as are many other formalised theories. Frankfurt School, Prague School, Oxford, Cambridge, the Greeks, Sanskrit...the list is full of pointers to a fascinating history of intellectual curiosity. In short, keep learning (questioning) and keep teaching (sharing) would be my recommended paradigm.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics