[PREV - THE_TRUE_PEIRCE]    [TOP]

DEWEY_INTROSPECTIVE

                                             December 21, 2021

From the Introduction to Dewey's "Logic: The Theory of Inquiry" (1938):

"I suggest that ... readers interpret what is said by calling to mind
whaty they themselves do, and the way they proceed in doing it, when
they are confronted with some question of difficulty which they attempt
to cope with in an intellectual way.  If they pursue this course, I
think the general principles will be sufficiently intelligible ... "


   Fair enough.  Picking up that challenge, I have to
   say that something like the Peirce criteria is
   immediately recognizeable in what I do, and I
   suspect in what many of us do:

   You start looking into a subject, and the longer
   you look your opinion is likely to start converging
   to a stable state-- you'll get to a point where it
   feels like it's tremendously unlikely your opinion
   is going to change all that much if you keep going.

   You might look at where the opinions of other people
   you respect, and infer that yours is likely to go there
   also if you keep going longer.

         Hypothetically, as Russell suggests, it could be
         you're inquiry will keep hitting things that seem
         like game-changers, your impression of the truth
         might very well keep jumping around the more you
         learn-- that would probably be taken as a sign
         that you need to keep going longer, your
         expectation would be that this period of
         oscillation is transitory.


But this is essentially the mode of thought you
use in evaluating complex, higher-level issues,
like say--

    "What role should nuclear power
    have in combating climate change?"

    "Are moderate Democrats
    delusional about the usefulness
    of their appeasement strategies?"

    "Does the farce story-form require
    an omniscient viewpoint?"


It has little to do with the more basic type
of knowledge that philosophers usually begin
with when musing about epistemology, like
"is there a chair over there?"

It's peculiar that Dewey seems to insist on conflating
the two... or perhaps he simply ignores the basic stuff
as being trivia that's beneath notice?

   It could be the dispute between Dewey and Bertrand
   Russell was largely about Russell starting on the
   low road, and Dewey on the high.



--------
[NEXT - RUSSELL_THE_DEW]