William James- You Can't Handle The Truth!
William James (1842-1910 AD)
The Power Of Practicality
When discussing philosophy with friends who aren't neurotic enough to study it formally, the conversation gets hung up on the concept of "truth". When I point out that something they said is generally regarded as untrue by most philosophers, they respond, "Well, it's true for me." Discussion over. Frustrating as this is, I understand where they're coming from. The question of truth is tricky. Some of the greatest philosophical minds have struggled with this, so why shouldn't we? We may not be able to define truth, but American philosopher William James (1849-1910) may have an answer that we just might agree on.
James believed that truth was far more than just something that just "feels right" or a standard our beliefs either measure up to or fail to meet. He thought truth could be explained in terms of a process that produces useful results. Truth happens to ideas and beliefs. His theory is called pragmatism, and it's one of the most important philosophical developments to come out of the United States.
The All-American Theory Of Truth
James' theory of truth comes from the transcripts of a series of lectures he gave titled Pragmatism. In lecture eight, James provides an account of the pragmatic theory of truth. He begins by explaining two different theories of truth: the pragmatic theory and the correspondence theory. And goes on to explain why the pragmatic theory deserves to be taken seriously.
The correspondence theory asserts that ideas and beliefs must reflect reality, And if they do, that is truth. James explains it this way: You have a clock on the wall. And in order for your idea of what the clock is to be true you must understand how it works and why it works. You must understand how the gears turn and the springs wind up. The pragmatist, on the other hand, just needs to know that it works in order to accept their concept of a clock to be true.
James asks a fundamental question: If we accept the correspondence theory of truth, how will it change the way we live our lives? What difference will it make to us?
James' answer is that it won't make a difference, but pragmatism will. He says it best when he asserts, "Pragmatism, on the other hand, asks its usual question. 'Grant an idea be true', it says, 'what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those that would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the belief's cash-value in experiential terms?'"
Trust The Process
In this insightful lecture, James provides an example of the pragmatic theory of truth in action by painting a picture of a starry, beautiful night in the woods. Sounds nice, right? But in this case you're hopelessly lost. The good news is you've spotted what looks like a cow-path in the woods.
He argues that it's of utmost importance that as you follow the path, you imagine a house at the end of it. Think of it like this: If the path looks like other cow-paths you've seen and you can verify that it's a cow-path, then your belief that there's a home at the end of it will lead you to take action towards a useful result. In this case the useful result is getting un-lost.
Are you feeling a little lost right now? That's OK. This is tricky and it's not easy to get the gist of what he's saying. You could read this lecture ten times and come away with something new every time. There are lots of nuances in his argument.
Predicting The Past
One important criticism James addresses is the idea of unverifiable truth. Most of us have never been to Pyongyang or met Kim Jong Un, but nonetheless we believe both are real. Since the pragmatic theory of truth relies heavily on the process of verification (that is we can verify the truth of their existence with our own eyes), this would seem to put a nail in the coffin of James' theory of pragmatism. Why? If we cannot verify that places or people exist by seeing or meeting them for ourselves, how can we possibly assume they really exist? That goes for both the present and the past.
James asserts that even though we haven't experienced truths for ourselves, we can nonetheless know they are true by observing the practical effects those truths have on our lives. For example, most of us were not around to experience the Second World War. But we can all observe artifacts in museums, watch films from the time, look at historical maps and even talk to our elders about their experience with the war. In a Jamesian view, we can verify these events happened by looking at the objects they produced.
Further, it's very useful to believe the Second World War happened. It would sure provide a lot of clarity as to why Europe's borders look the way they do, why we have atomic weapons and why there were such massive population declines across Europe and Asia.
In the same way, we can know Pyongyang and Kim Jong Un exist by examining the circumstances of the world around us. We can read the news, look at how much of the military budget goes to protecting South Korea and see relics from the Korean War and accounts of how Korea was divided into separate countries, North and South, with Pyongyang being the capital of the north. Above all it is useful for us to believe that North Korea is run by a hostile dictator, which would be quite good to know before deciding to take a casual stroll across the DMZ.
James thinks that we believe a great many unverifiable things are true. We can't prove that we're not in the Matrix, we can't prove that other people like us and we can't prove that other minds than ours exist. Nonetheless, we can assume them to be true simply by virtue of the fact that they are useful to us.
Squaring The Circle
So far we have only discussed pragmatism as it relates to objects in the world. But what about things we can't see or touch? Intangible things like math or the scientific method. James has something to say about both.
Let's begin with a humble circle. You may remember from high school math that the formula for the area of a circle is π/r^2, or pi divided by the radius to the power of two. James uses the idea of an irrational number, like pi, to point out something interesting about unverifiable truths. We may not know the billionth digit of pi, but we nonetheless can produce useful results with the digits we do know. We will never know the infinite digits of pi or Euler's number, but that doesn't keep us from using them all the time -- and to great effect.
What does this mean for James' theory of truth? It points back to the idea of verification being a process and utility being the end goal. First, we can notice that our formula π/r^2 can be verified to work for all circles. Second, as we calculate more digits of pi, we get closer to the actual area of the circle. As we get closer to the actual area of the circle, our calculations become more useful. As our calculations become more useful, they become more true.
As for the scientific method, James believes that first and foremost it produces useful results. We begin the method by seeing whether or not our data is consistent with the data we already have. Then we go on to use the data in practical ways. "Truth in science," says James, "gives us the maximum possible sum of satisfactions, taste included ..."
More To Come?
This post was a way bigger undertaking than I initially thought it would be. I meant it to be a brief introduction to James' theory of truth. Throughout the rest of the essay he defends pragmatism from critics who hold to the correspondence theory of truth. I might address those in another post if people ask.
I'd like to take these final words to explain why I like William James and his ideas so much. Often times, philosophers get so lost in the nitty-gritty details of arguments that they lose sight of their applicability. James never had that problem for me. His philosophy is always readily applicable to daily life and challengingly deep and interesting. Hopefully if nothing else this post has encouraged you to check out James for yourself and read what he has to say.