'If the child is standing near the coffee table then stand near the child in case they fall, perhaps this is a toddler learning to walk.' Before the instinctive act, no-one present at the time had reasoned that the child might fall against the table, the instinctive act saved the child from injury. — universeness

This thread is about knowledge as seen from a pragmatic perspective. It's about knowledge, not behavior.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
— universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?
— T Clark

So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase? — universeness

It's not that a philosophy of instinct or intuition doesn't exist, I'm sure it does. It's that it wasn't involved in the actions taken to protect the child. No philosophy was. Why would there be? I don't get it.

As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings.
— T Clark

Do you have scientific evidence for this assertion? — Cornwell1

It's a metaphysical assertion, not a statement of fact.

Why you don't understand this? I have read this (interesting!) thread ab initio.

You asserted "that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life". Is that why you don't understand the meaning? — Cornwell1

I'll let @universeness respond to my post and see where we go from there.

Observation and deduction are elements of pragmatism. — universeness

William James, pragmatism, and I don't care which mechanism is used to obtain the information.

So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase? — universeness

I don't know what this means.

what do you mean by useful? — karl stone

Here's what I wrote in the OP.

As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. — T Clark

As a pragmatist, isn't it more prgamatic to defend reasonable assumption against unreasonable scepticism — karl stone

I said this in an earlier post in this thread:

One thing I haven't discussed is how the information we incorporate into the conceptual model is evaluated, justified. Justification comes in the steps where we evaluate the SCM. We need to answer these questions:
— T Clark

• Does the information we have provide adequate support?
• Can we identify and document the source of that information?
• What are the uncertainties in our knowledge?
• What are the consequences of us being wrong?

I would ask these questions about whatever information I am using. The relevant ones here are the last two. How uncertain am I of the information I am using? What happens if I'm wrong. Those considerations would determine whether any assumption is reasonable or not.

Well perhaps not 'only' but you imply that your opinion is that its the 'best' way to travel. — universeness

Well, if you are agreeing that instinctive actions and intuitive actions are valid methods of gaining knowledge and pragmatic actions are another valid method then are you merely saying that of the three, in your opinion, pragmatic actions produce 'more valuable' knowledge? — universeness

Pragmatism and intuition are not in the same category. Intuition is a source of information just like observation or deduction. Pragmatism doesn't care where the information comes from. It's how we handle that information that matters.

doesn't epistemological pragmatism devolve to an infinite regression that can only be brought to an end by asserting something is true? — karl stone

Here is a description of William James' definition of truth from an article I found on his book "Pragmatism.

Beliefs are considered to be true if and only if they are useful and can be practically applied. At one point in his works, James states, “. . . the ultimate test for us of what a truth means is the conduct it dictates or inspires.”

So, I guess the answer is yes, truth is needed, but truth is defined differently in pragmatism.

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right. — baker

I want to step in here to defend @Tom Storm. He is not a bully.

Seems to me that for something to be useful there needs to be some element of truth. Have you provided an example where a falsehood was useful? — Harry Hindu

I think you've missed the point of my part in this discussion. How much of this thread have you read?

You are suggesting that using pragmatism as an epistemology ("pragmatic approach to knowledge") is the only way to travel. — universeness

I never said that.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved. — universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?

'It was my intuition that told me you were cheating on me. I had no evidence but it turned out to be true.'

Again an intuitive assumption resulted in new correct knowledge obtained but the new accurate knowledge was not based on a pragmatic epistemology.

You are putting too much space between knowledge and behavior or cause and effect.
Instinct and intuition are valid methods to use to gain new knowledge and so is pragmatism.
It may well be true that pragmatism will be a more fruitful approach compared to instinct or intuition but this does not mean it is wise to ignore your instincts or intuition on every occasion and wait for your pragmatism to kick in. — universeness

I never said intuition is not a valid mechanism for gaining knowledge. What does that have to do with pragmatism?

I don't disagree with everything said in this thread, but I feel that I start losing the track of what it means to be pragmatic vs not pragmatic. Could you give some examples of non-pragmatic behaviors or philosophies? It seems like it's the human nature to act pragmatically. Even the people who subscribe to seemingly nonsense philosophies have their reason to do so, and such people act pragmatically in their own ways. — pfirefry

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." I gave what I consider a good example of such an approach in the OP. Several other people have provided additional examples.

In opposition to that, I described the justified true belief approach to knowledge, which focuses on the truth of individual propositions rather than development of conceptual models.

My issue was if you were suggesting that being 'Pragmatic' was the top priority... I think you have given pragmatism too high a priority — universeness

I call myself a pragmatist because the decisions I agree with are almost always pragmatic. I was pragmatic before I was a pragmatist. It's not a question of priority, it's how I see the world. Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences.

Fucking Europeans and their continental bullshit! — Tom Storm

Agreed.

Well again, it depends on the exemplar scenario under consideration.
If I am angry at myself, extremely angry then I may not put up with 'the abuse' anymore and I might change my life for the better.
If I hate the Nazi 'B' then I may fight against him/her much more than if I try to be pragmatic about the whole issue. Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness

From here, I can't tell if those were good decisions or not. They certainly aren't ones where you have to act quickly on the spur of the moment. There's time for you to ruminate and try to think about the consequences.

When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in phenomenology — Tom Storm

I've never understood - How can you turn something as simple as my own experience of the world into something so complicated and convoluted. Whenever I start to read something about phenomenology I say "No! No! How does it feel?"

For the nazis it was. The machine of destruction was pretty well worked out. Hatred my fiend... — HKpinsky

There's a pretty good chance you're going to be banned just based on what you've written so far. I suggest you PM a moderator if you want to clarify what you're saying before they do.

Is it not a pragmatic/sensible/logical act, to be aware of self and what your own values are? — universeness

It's not unpragmatic, insensible, or illogical, but I don't know if being more self-aware makes it more likely you will be pragmatic.

I think he is trying to understand how the 'good' associated with Godliness measures up against a prison guard who helps facilitate the holocaust. His actions would be evil but his faith in god may still be true, valid and good. He may even truly believe he is doing his gods work. I think it is this area that Peterson is trying to take on. — universeness

Again, I don't see what this has to do with pragmatism.

Because they are mostly instinctive, there is often not enough time to be pragmatic. I don't think 'fight or flight' has much reason. You often reason about what happened after it's all over — universeness

Reacting to a highly emotional fight or flight response without thinking is understandable, but it's not likely to lead to the best outcome. That's the pragmatic standard.

Which decision did you consider 'not effective' in the two scenarios involving hate and anger that I gave? — universeness

Sorry, I lost track of the decisions you are talking about.

It was hatred that was the motor behind one of the most effective decision making in history: "Der Endlösung" at the Wannsee Konferenz. — HKpinsky

I've flagged your post. We'll let the moderators decide if the Final Solution was an "effective decision."

I agree, but self-awareness compared to what? How do we measure our improvement in self-awareness? How can we tell the difference between self-serving opinions and awareness? — Tom Storm

Keep trying. Try to be honest with yourself. Judge your results against the outside world and other people. Do the best you can. How's that?

Running or fighting might be a better approach when raw facing hatred, dead on. — universeness

In what sense are running or fighting not pragmatic responses, depending on the specific situation? Pragmatically, if the guy is 350 pounds and has a knife, I run. If I can't get away, I fight. I think strong emotion is more likely to lead you to making the wrong decision about what to do than clear thinking.

Hatred and Anger can greatly benefit in many scenario's — universeness

That's not true. Strong emotions are sometimes impossible to avoid, but I don't think they lead to effective decision making.

I think his broader point is about self-awareness. As Peterson and may others have mused, everyone tends to think of themselves as hypothetically opposing Hitler or being in the resistance if they found themselves in Nazi Germany. But the odds are you are more likely to be an active supporter, not a dissenter and much more likely a guard, not a liberator. That is the tragic dimension to human behavior and the self-awareness gap Peterson often attempts to highlight. — Tom Storm

I don't see what connection this has with pragmatism. Is there one?

I'd be interested in knowing more about the relationship between self-awareness and pragmatism. — Tom Storm

If you ask me what my goal is with philosophy, I'll say increasing my self-awareness. As this thread shows, I also claim to be a pragmatist. I'd like to say the more self-aware you are, the more likely you are to be a pragmatist, but that's just my vanity speaking. I'm not sure they're related.

If one was to prove the existence of good wouldn't all other incentives need to be removed? We always seem to have many drives for practicality. We don't like over simplicity. But wouldn't we need to bare it if we are to truely be good without self or group serving incentives for evolutionary reasons? — TiredThinker

I don't understand. The reasons I gave were personal, emotional reasons, although I think they are based in human nature. They have nothing to do with trying to be good. Or looking good.

I was trying to respond to comments on my post, but it has been removed. Do you know why it was removed? — Ree Zen

Suggest you contact one or two of the moderators in a private message. There's a list of moderators under "Members" at the top of the page. Pick a couple who are currently online. Also, sometimes they incorporate threads into other existing ones if the subjects are similar.

Moderators are usually not very considerate about letting people know why their stuff has been removed. Pisses me off too.

Much of philosophy has been involved in the pursuit of pseudo-problems, or questions raised not in life which raise what Peirce thought was faux doubt like Descartes' claim to doubt everything. — Ciceronianus

You make it hard to respond, since I agree with everything you say. Philosophy's fascination with Decartes and doubt are one of the things that set me off. I do love that Cartesian geometry though. We engineers couldn't do anything without. So, all is forgiven.

So, I suggest that you're method start with a problem. — Ciceronianus

It always does.

The view that a specific ontology is required for such an approach is, I think, another of the differences philosophers sometimes enjoy considering which, in fact, make no difference (as James would say). — Ciceronianus

Yes, "It doesn't make any difference" is my favorite philosophical proposition.

I think all useful epistemology will employ pragmatism. — universeness

Sure, but to me, much of what calls itself epistemology is not useful at all. Exhibit A - justified true belief. Exhibit B - the Gettier problems.

I would not call myself a pragmatist as it gives too much priority to the term. — universeness

I try to hedge my bets on that. As you can see in the opening post, I said "I call myself a pragmatist." I don't like labels, but I don't want to look like I'm afraid to take the rap.

but pragmatism has limited use when dealing with extreme emotional content such as hate, love, madness etc, yet these extreme emotions can produce 'eureka' moments. — universeness

I strongly disagree. A pragmatic view never doubts the existence of or denies the value of human emotion. A pragmatic approach does lean toward actions that solve problems rather than satisfying strong feelings. Hatred and anger tend to lead to actions that make things worse. Is there any philosophy that endorses that? Yes, I guess there probably are. They are not for me.

Jordan Peterson stated that he was haunted by or he struggles with the thought of himself in the role of a prison guard in a death camp during the holocaust and he asks but it's possible to love such work.
Horror, terror, ecstasy, wonder. I don't think pragmatism touches these yet many people experience such, every day. — universeness

I'm not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, and I'm not really sure what he was trying to say. A death camp guard loving their work seems like a really bad example. Pragmatists can be horrified and terrified. It's not how they feel that's different, it's what they think you should do about it.

Some random reactions - I come from the reverse of engineering - community work - no maths, few solutions, unanswered questions and jagged edges. — Tom Storm

Engineers tend to be pragmatists, both because it's required for the job and because engineering tends to attract people with a predisposition. That being said, I don't think pragmatism's reach is in any way limited to such technical issues. I used an engineering example because it is something concrete I am very familiar with.

I guess for me everything needs to start with at least one presupposition, namely that truth or ultimately reality are likely inaccessible or imagined... I wonder if holding a pragmatic epistemology is more of a world view than a philosophy - not wanting to make too much of this, but a key question inherent in setting up one's philosophical orientation is how deep are we prepared to dive and why? — Tom Storm

As you know, I have a strong interest in Taoism, so I've spent a lot of time thinking about the ineffable. I don't see that, or any other presupposition, as being in conflict with a pragmatic way of seeing things.

World view vs. philosophy? I'm not sure I know the difference. I think pragmatism is as much a full-fledged philosophy as anything thought up by Kant, Plato, or any of those other old guys. I admit, when you get into some of the more esoteric subjects, the pragmatic response might be "who cares?" But it's a very philosophical "who cares." If a pragmatic way of thinking tends to avoid "deep dives," maybe that says something about the value of diving that deep.

What is the irony in mentioning Mary? — Bitter Crank

As you say:

In a way, I'm not sure one can say Jesus was the founder of Christianity, let alone his mother....If we are looking for a founder, Paul comes much closer. — Bitter Crank

My answer was ironic because Mary didn't found the Christian church in the same way Paul, Mohammad, or Mary Baker Eddy did theirs. All she did was give birth to God.

To impress those we like that they may stay in our lives? — TiredThinker

I didn't say there were no other reasons to help people, only that we don't need any more.

But is there any good we do when nobody is looking other than to make ourselves feel good? Is morality driven by punishment? Any exception if that were largely true? — TiredThinker

We like each other. We care about each other. We have empathy for each other. We live with each other. What more reasons do we need to help people?

But the point remains that we interpret Eastern thought through a Western lens, i.e. your description of Taoism as "meat and potatoes philosophy". — Noble Dust

Don't make me come down to NY and lay some Tao upside your head.

Welfare isn’t a one-to-one ratio with socialism, but I agree. — NOS4A2

Well...yes.... I was being ironic.

If you are interested in a serious discussion of epistemology that follows what you consider pragmatic, you can join Bob Ross and I here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 The first two pages of responses are primarily junk, but when Bob Ross joins, we have a serious discussion. — Philosophim

I don't remember seeing it before. I'll take a look.

Resist falling under the spell of socialism, if you can. — NOS4A2

Yes, and get rid of Social Security and Medicare while you're at it.

Present your case in whichever way you like. — universeness

As I noted, it isn't my job to make the case, and you haven't done it. You've made claims about the way things happened without any references or backup other than the book you're discussing and "seems to me."

It's also perfectly fine for you to choose to pick up your ball and remove yourself, if you don't want to play. — universeness

You've misunderstood the purpose of philosophy and of the forum. Criticizing your ideas is part of the game. It is playing. If you want me to pick up my ball, I suggest you don't respond to this post. If you do respond, that's an invitation for me to continue.

The west interpreting the east in a western way. This doesn't say anything about the actual ideas. — Noble Dust

Perhaps you're right, but I don't see eastern philosophies, at least not Taoism as formulated by Lao Tzu, as esoteric at all. As I always say, to me, it's meat and potatoes philosophy.

Yes, it is a requirement, and some people treat it as an inconvenience: "I understand the problem, and I have a solution. Why should I be wasting my time on writing it down for the sake of bureaucracy?" Software engineers are free-spirited and they despise inefficient processes. A part of my job is to teach them to embrace this process, because I'm convinced that writing design docs benefits the author even more than the reader. — pfirefry

Civil engineers are not so different. Not so much free spirited, maybe, as lazy. If you want to be an artist, sometimes you have to clean the paint brushes.

Unless you mean to exclude pragmatics like Dewey and James, in a pragmatic view. knowledge is a conceptual model that can be more or less USEFUL. — Joshs

Agreed.

You mentioned forms of philosophy reliant on truth propositional logic as not pragmatically meaningful, but I assume you would also include many Continental philosophers. — Joshs

I'm not familiar with the works of those philosophers in more than a casual way, so I can't comment specifically. Are there any philosophers other than the pragmatists who focus on the usefulness of knowledge rather than truth? Or, I guess, who define truth in terms of usefulness.

There is a danger that ‘normal human beings’ becomes synonymous with ‘ human being who can understand the philosophy’. — Joshs

That certainly isn't how I mean it. I mean Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, John Doe, John Q. Public, Hugh G. Rection, Ben Dover, Harry P. Ness.

But the greatest works of continental philosophy, from Plato to Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and Nietzsche, were initially and for the most part still to this day meaningful to only a small segment of the population. But such ‘useful’ philosophies became the basis for interpretations by mathematicians and scientists (Newton, Frege, Gauss, Heisenberg, Godel, Turing, Darwin, Freud) who produced models influenced by these ideas which in turn led to new technologies, therapies, sciences. So the usefulness doesn’t happen as a direct communication from abstract philosophy to ‘normal human beings’ , it happens in stages, by being translated into more and more pragmatically articulated versions over time, accessible to increasingly large segments of the population. — Joshs

Good point. How to respond... How about this - The scientific method is about as pragmatic as you can be. It was the model for the process I described in the opening post. I was never claiming that all the philosophers before Peirce and James weren't of value.

Good post.

In software engineering, we have a practice of consolidating knowledge in Design Docs, also called RFCs (Requests For Comments). E.g. Google, Uber. Overall, it is similar to SCM. When someone needs to build a new feature or change an existing system, they will write the proposal in a design doc and assign relevant stakeholders for a review. — pfirefry

The design docs you are talking about seem like what we call basis of design memoranda (BDM). BDM are usually prepared when data collection is complete, although design investigations required to gather specific additional information my be described. The BDM summarizes all the information required to complete the design including the goals of the design; performance requirements; required data analyses and modelling; a data summary; the SCM; and operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements for the completed design.

Overall, my stance is that knowledge exists in our heads. We use processes such as SCM and design docs to solidify our own knowledge and to align our knowledge with the knowledge of others. The artefacts of the process, such as SCM and design docs, don't fully capture the knowledge that we have, but they help their readers to form their own knowledge. Obtaining knowledge and sharing it with others requires investing time and effort. A pragmatic person knows how to balance the time spent researching and the time spent doing. — pfirefry

In the kinds of designs I have worked on, professional standards and standard engineering practice require that the basis of the design has to be documented in writing to justify design decisions that are made. The same is true of all subsequent design documents. At any time I should be able to answer the question "Why did you do it that way?" and provide backup for the decision.

Intuitively, we think that sharing knowledge is an altruistic act, because it takes away someone's time for the benefit of others. But I think oftentimes it is not the case. For example, this comment is an artefact of knowledge sharing. I expect that 90% of the value generated from this comment is for my personal gain, from organising my thoughts on this topic, and I can only hope that it will generate at least some value for others. — pfirefry

What goes on here is really different from what goes on in the design process. During design, sharing knowledge, or at least documenting it, is a fundamental requirement. It's not altruistic at all.

Sure, pragmatism pretends to drop the notion of truth in the hope of working instead only with belief. — Banno

I'll let what I've already written stand as a response to this. I've tried to be clear about my understanding of these things and I think I've succeeded. You're a smart guy. It's not that hard. You just like being contrary. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me.

But one does not have to drop the notion of truth in order to act in accord with your six methodological points. Indeed, it is clear from the first point that some things are to be taken as true in order to get the process started.

It would not do in your example to doubt the existence of groundwater and soil. These are presumed as constitutive of the activity in which you are engaged.

But further, it would not do to doubt that one can keep accurate records, that one can make measurements, that one can communicate these with others, that one's actions can make a difference to the environment. — Banno

That's it? That's what truth is needed for - to tell us the world exists? That's more metaphysics than knowledge.

The Long Goodbye, Raymond Chandler — jamalrob

Did you ever see the film by Robert Altman with Elliot Gould? I guess a lot of people don't like it because of it's unconventional Phillip Marlow, but it's one of my favorites. I've always liked Gould.

You would have to elaborate and use examples to evidence your point of view. Otherwise what you have typed is mere simplistic opinion. — universeness

I think you have it backwards. You're the one who made the claims. It's up to you to provide evidence that they are correct. Everything you presented in your original post is what I call "seems to me" history, anthropology, political science, and economics. I know enough history and anthropology to know it ain't so.