Keywords a priori truth chess graduate students Hebb Philosophy is an a priori discipline like mathematics or at least it has an a priori methodology at its core and this fact cuts two ways On the one hand it excuses philosophers from spending tedio ID: 3475
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "Abstract Many projects in contemporary p..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Abstract Manyprojectsincontemporaryphilosophy areartifactualpuzzlesofnoabidingsigniÞcance,butit istreacherouslyeasyforgraduatestudentstobelured intodevotingtheircareerstothem,soadviceisprof- feredonhowtoavoidthistrap. Keywords aprioritruth,chess,graduatestudents, Hebb Philosophyisanaprioridiscipline,likemathematics, andthisfactcutstwoways.Ontheonehand,itexcuses philosophersfromspendingtedioushoursinthelabor theÞeld,andfromlearningdata-gatheringtechniques, statisticalmethods,geography,history,foreignlan- guages...,empiricalscience,sotheyhaveplentyof timeforhoningtheirphilosophicalskills.Ontheother hand,asisoftennoted,youcanmakephilosophyout ofjustaboutanything,andthisisnotalwaysablessing. Consider,asaparadigmofaprioritruths,thetruths andtherearemountainsofotherempiricalfactsabout chess,abouthowpeoplehavebeenplayingitforcen- turies,oftenusehandsomelycarvedpiecesoninlaid boards,andsoforth.Noknowledgeoftheseempirical factsplaysanindispensableroleintheactivityof workingouttheaprioritruthsofchess,whichalsoexist inabundance.Allyouneedtoknowaretherulesof white(16pawnmovesandfourknightmoves);aking andlonebishopcannotachievecheckmate,andneither canakingandloneknight,andsoforth. 1 Workingout theseaprioritruthsaboutchessisnotchildÕsplay. Provingjustwhatisandisnotpossiblewithintherules ofchessisanintricatetask,andmistakescanbemade thatgetperpetuated.Forinstance,afewyearsago,a computerchessprogramdiscoveredamatingnetÑa acapture.Thisdisprovedalong-standingÔÔtheoremÕÕof chessandhasforcedachangeintherulesofthegame. Itusedtobethat50moveswithoutacapturebyeither sideconstitutedadraw(stalemate),butsincethis lengthymatingnetisunbreakable,andleadstoawin, itisunreasonabletomaintaintheÞfty-movestalemate. (Beforecomputersbeganplayingchess,nobody imaginedthatthere could anywherenearthislength.)Allthiscanbepretty interesting,andmanyhighlyintelligentpeoplehave devotedtheirmindstoinvestigatingthissystemofa prioritruthsofchess. SomephilosophicalresearchprojectsÑorproble- matics,tospeakwiththemoreliterarytypesÑare ratherlikeworkingoutthetruthsofchess.Asetof mutuallyagreeduponrulesarepresupposedÑand seldomdiscussedÑandtheimplicationsofthoserules studentsattendingtheBrownUniversityGraduatePhilosophy ConferenceonFebruary16,2002,andmyowngraduate studentsatTufts.Ithankthem,andcolleaguesatTuftsand elsewhere,forvaluablereactionsandsuggestions. D.C.Dennett( & ) CenterforCognitiveStudies,TuftsUniversity,Medford, MA02155,USA e-mail:Daniel.Dennett@tufts.edu 1 AfewdaysafterIwrotethis,thechesscolumnintheBoston achievecheckmatewithaloneknight.Butingeneral,itisnot possible.ThespecialcaseisshownintheaccompanyingÞgure. Topoi(2006):39Ð41 DOI10.1007/s11245-006-0005-2 123 RESEARCHARTICLE Higher-ordertruthsaboutchmess DanielC.Dennett SpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2006 areworkedout,articulated,debated,reÞned.Sofar,so good.Chessisadeepandimportanthumanartifact, aboutwhichmuchofvaluehasbeenwritten.Butsome philosophicalresearchprojectsaremorelikeworking outthetruthsof chmess .Chmessisjustlikechess exceptthatthekingcanmovetwosquaresinany direction,notone.IjustinventeditÑthoughnodoubt othershaveexploreditindepthtoseeifitisworth playing.ProbablyitisnÕt.Itprobablyhasothernames. IdidnÕtbotherinvestigatingthesequestionsbecause althoughtheyhavetrueanswers,theyjustarenÕtworth mytimeandenergytodiscover.OrsoIthink.There arejustasmanyaprioritruthsofchmessasthereare ofchess(aninÞnity),andtheyarejustashardtodis- cover.Andthatmeansthatifpeopleactuallydidget involvedininvestigatingthetruthsofchmess,they wouldmakemistakes,whichwouldneedtobecor- rected,andthisopensupawholenewÞeldofapriori investigation,the higher-order truthsofchmess,suchas thefollowing: 1.JonesÕ(1989)proofthat p isatruthofchmessis ßawed:heoverlooksthefollowingpossibility... 2.SmithÕs(2002)claimthatJonesÕ(1989)proofis ßawedpresupposesthetruthofBrownÕslemma (1975),whichhasrecentlybeenchallengedby GarÞnkle(2002)... NownoneofthisischildÕsplay.Infact,onemightbe abletodemonstrateconsiderablebrillianceinthe groupactivityofworkingoutthehigher-ordertruthsof chmess.HereiswhereDonaldHebbÕsdictumcomesin handy: IfitisnÕtworthdoing,itisnÕtworthdoingwell. Eachofuscanreadilythinkofanongoingcontro- versyinphilosophywhoseparticipantswouldbeoutof workifHebbÕsdictumwereruthlesslyapplied,butwe nodoubtdisagreeonjustwhichcottageindustries shouldbeshutdown.Probablythereisnoinvestigation inourcapaciousdisciplinethatisnotbelievedbysome schoolofthoughttobewastedeffort,brilliance squanderedontakingineachotherÕslaundry.Voting wouldnotyieldresultsworthheeding,anddictatorship wouldbeevenworse,soletathousandßowersbloom, Isay.Butjustremember:ifyouletathousandßowers bloom,counton995ofthemtowilt.ThealertIwantto offeryouisjustthis:trytoavoidcommittingyour preciousformativeyearstoaresearchagendawitha shortshelflife.Philosophicalfadsquicklygoextinct andtheremaybesometruthtotheruleofthumb:the hotterthetopic,thesooneritwillburnout. OnegoodtesttomakesureyouÕrenotjust exploringthehigher-ordertruthsofchmessistoseeif peopleasidefromphilosophersactuallyplaythe game.Cananybodyoutsideofacademicphilosophy bemadeto care whetheryouÕrerightaboutwhether JonesÕcounterexampleworksagainstSmithÕsprinciple? Anothersuchtestistotrytoteachthestuffto uninitiatedundergraduates.IftheydonÕtÔÔgetit,ÕÕyou reallyshouldconsiderthehypothesisthatyouÕre followingaself-supportingcommunityofexpertsinto anartifactualtrap. Hereisonewaythetrapworks.Philosophyisto someextentanunnaturalact,andthemoreintelligent youare,themorequalmsandreservationsyouare likelytohaveaboutwhetheryougetit,whetheryouÕre ÔÔdoingitright,ÕÕwhetheryouhaveanytalentforthis disciplineandevenonwhetherthedisciplineisworth enteringintheÞrstplace.SobrightstudentJonesis appropriately insecureaboutgoingintophilosophy. IntriguedbyProfessorBrownÕsdiscussion,Jonestakes astabatit,writingapaperonhottopic H thatisgiven anÔÔAÕÕbyProfessorBrown.ÔÔYouÕvegotrealtalent, Jones,ÕÕsaysBrown,andJoneshasjustdiscovered somethingthatmightmakesuitablelifework.Jones beginstoinvestinlearningtherulesofthisparticular game,andplayingitferociouslywiththeotheryoung aspirants.ÔÔHey,weÕregoodatthis!ÕÕtheysay,egging eachotheron.Doubtsabouttheenablingassumptions oftheenterprisetendtobemufßedorsquelchedÔÔfor thesakeofargument.ÕÕPublicationsfollow. SodonÕtcountonthevalidationofyourfellow graduatestudents or yourfavoriteprofessorstosettle theissue.Theyallhaveavestedinterestinkeepingthe enterprisegoing.ItÕswhattheyknowhowtodo;itÕs whattheyaregoodat.ThisisaprobleminotherÞelds too,ofcourse,anditcanbeevenhardertobreakout of.Experimentalistswhomasteratechniqueandequip anexpensivelabforpursuingitoftengetstuckÞllingin theblanksofdatamatricesthatnobodycaresabout anylonger.Whataretheysupposedtodo?Throw awayallthatexpensiveapparatus?Itcanbeanasty problem.Itisactuallyeasierandcheaperforphiloso- pherstore-tool.Afterall,ourÔÔtrainingÕÕisnot,in general,high-tech.ItÕsmainlyamatteroflearningour wayaroundinvariousliteratures,learningthemoves thathavebeentriedandtested.Andherethetrapto avoidissimplythis:youseethatsomebodyeminent hasassertedsomethinguntenableordubiousinprint; ProfessorGoofmakerÕscleverbutßawedpieceisa sittingduck,justtherighttargetforaneye-catching debutpublication.Goforit.Youweighin,alongwitha dozenothers,andnowyoumustwatchyourstep, becausebythetimeyouÕveallcitedeachotherand 40 D.C.Dennett 123 respondedtotheresponses,youÕreabuddingexperton HowtoDealwithHowtoDealwithResponsesto GoofmakerÕsminoroverstatement.(Andremember, too,thatifGoofmakerhadnÕtmadehisthesisalittle toobold,heneverwouldhaveattractedalltheatten- tionintheÞrstplace;thetemptationtobeprovocative isnotrestrictedtograduatestudentsonthelookoutfor asplashyentranceintotheÞeld.) OfcoursesomepeoplearequitecontenttoÞnda congenialgroupofsmartpeoplewithwhomtoshare ÔÔthefunofdiscovery,thepleasuresofcooperation, andthesatisfactionofreachingagreement,ÕÕasJohn Austinonceputit(seeAustin1961,p.175),without worryingaboutwhetherthejointtaskisworthdoing. Andifenoughpeopledoit,iteventuallybecomesa phenomenoninitsownright,worthstudying.As BurtonDrebenusedtosaytothegraduatestudentsat Harvard,ÔÔPhilosophyisgarbage,butthehistoryof garbageisscholarship.ÕÕSomegarbageismore importantthanothergarbage,however,anditÕshardto decidewhichofitisworthyofscholarship.Inanother lecturepublishedinthesamebook,Austingaveusthe followingsnidemasterpiece: Itisnotunusualforanaudienceatalectureto includesomewhopreferthingstobeimportant, andtothemnow,incasethereareanysuch present,thereisowedaperoration.(ÔÔIfsand cans,ÕÕpp.230Ð31) Austinwasabrilliantphilosopher,butmostofthe verypromisingphilosopherswhoorbitedaroundhim, nodoubtchucklingatthisremark,havevanished withoutatrace,theiroh-so-cleverworkinordinary- languagephilosophydulypublishedandthenutterly anddeservedlyignoredwithinafewyearsofpublica- tion.Ithashappenedmanytimes. Sowhatshouldyoudo?ThetestsIhavemen- tionedÑseeingiffolksoutsidephilosophy,orbright undergraduates,canbemadetocareÑareonly warningsigns,notdeÞnitive.Certainlytherehave been,andwillbe,forbiddinglyabstruseanddifÞcult topicsofphilosophicalinvestigationwellworthpur- suing,inspiteofthefactthattheuninitiatedremain unimpressed.IcertainlydonÕtwanttodiscourage explorationsthatdefytheambientpresumptionsabout whatisinterestingandimportant.Onthecontrary,the bestboldstrokesintheÞeldwillalmostalwaysbemet bystonyincredulityorridiculeatÞrst,andthese shouldnotdeteryou.Mypointisjustthatyoushould notsettlecomplacentlyintoaseatonthebandwagon justbecauseyouhavefoundsomebrilliantfellow travelerswhoÞndyourworkontheissueasunignor- ableasyouÞndtheirs.Youmayallbetakingeach otherforaride. Reference AustinJL(1961)ÔÔApleaforexcuses,ÕÕinhisPhilosophical papers.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,pp.175Ð204. Higher-ordertruths 41 123