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. Dominant approach to history of science

2. Use of charity in understanding

3. Discussion of the uses of charity

4. 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 regardto 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 GellnerPrecisely 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 socially2.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 excluded1.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 underdetermination1. 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