In A Nutshell
Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy
brought to you by Ron Yezzi
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
Minnesota State University, Mankato
© Copyright 2015, 2020, 2023 by Ron Yezzi
Return to Ron Yezzi's World Page
I would describe my position as Naturalistic Realism. I begin with the commonsense world of my experience and cultural views; I then go through a continuing process of passing that world through rational and empirical (sensory) filters. Some realities of that commonsense world I will continue to accept so that they become realities in my world. But there will also be subtractions and additions. So, for example, I accept that physical and mental phenomena (entities, events) are real, that other human beings exist, and that emotional responses can strongly influence human actions. Examples of subtractions include the earth being flat and stationary, superstitions, supernatural entities (like the common conception of God or an immortal soul), and traditional individualism. Examples of additions include the enormity of space and time, evolution, naturalistic explanations for mystifying events, neutrinos, human-caused climate change, reconstructed individualism, and the requirements for equal opportunity.
These additions and subtractions have important consequences; but they do not always require radical changes in our daily lives. For example, giving up the notion that the earth is flat and stationary does not mean that I should see myself as someone trying to walk on a rapidly rolling beach ball. Given the facts of the slight curvature of the earth around any one person and that the earth is never moving faster or slower than I am (since I am standing on the earth), I proceed as if the earth is flat and stationary in my everyday activities. Similarly, as we become more aware of deterministic conditions affecting us, it does not follow that we stop making choices in our everyday lives. Or giving up claims about God's existence does not entail throwing away all religious values, since most of these values may have other worthwhile justifications.
In considering what is, we need to avoid two fallacies, the X-centric Fallacy and the Fallacy of Collapsing Continuity.
X-centric Fallacy - Since everything is experienced, conceived, or known through X, only X exists.
What X stands for, varies with different philosophers: X = my self (Solipsism); X = ideas (Idealism); X = sense impressions (Phenomenalism); X = matter (Materialism); X = symbols (Linguo-centrism); X = social constructions (Socio-centrism). Some famous philosophical statements can be associated with this Fallacy, for example, "Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived") and "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." A fallacy occurs because a well-reasoned case can be made for there being some reality besides X. Probably the best way to show this begins by taking on solipsism.
Collapsing Continuity Fallacy - You can lose or distort a portion of reality by treating a continuous process in static or separated terms.
Zeno's paradoxes of motion and David Hume's analyses of causation and personal identity are prime examples of the fallacy. Consider Zeno's Arrow paradox: Motion must be impossible: If an arrow is crossing a field (a continuous process) , at each instant, it must be at one place (reinterpretation in static terms); so, at each instant, the arrow must be at rest. Hence motion does not exist (disappearance of a basic reality). The problem lies with the mistake of reinterpreting in static terms, since it conflicts with the nature of a continuous process.
(Note: This is a restatement of Alfred North Whitehead's Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness, which always impressed me.)
Regarding the relation of mind and body: Given the past history of evolution on earth, there are physical processes (or entities), physical-organic processes (or entities), physical-organic-mental processes (or entities), physical-organic-mental-valuational processes (or entities). But there are no organic processes (or entities), no mental processes (or entities), no valuational processes (or entities) standing by themselves. A simple application: There are no souls or life after death.
The advent of computers and artificial intelligence complicates the account but does not diminish or destroy the explanation of the evolutionary procession's solution to the mind-body problem.
As an introduction, I will focus briefly on just three issues of some importance--the traits of a moral person, the fundamental principle of morality, and ways of determining what ought to be. Probably my main goal in the realm of ethics is a transformation of values into factual claims for investigation, in keeping with my Naturalistic Realism. It's not that I expect constant, general agreement on which factual claims are reliable and which are not. Rather, it's that I want to move firmly away from the view that values are inexplainable, free-floating, subjective creations.
I judge a moral person to be one who exhibits sensitivity, knowledge, cooperativeness, and character. Sensitivity is emotional appreciation (empathic understanding) of the experiences of oneself or others. Knowledge is intellectual awareness of the requirements of moral action. Cooperativeness is the willingness to work constructively with others in pursuit of goals. Character here is the determination to act in accordance with the dictates of sensitivity, knowledge, and cooperativeness. The traits need to be exhibited in some proper balance, both individually and as a whole. So sensitivity lies between being overly sensitive and being insensitive. And focusing on just one or two of the traits can put actions out of balance. No one exhibits all four traits in proper balance perfectly all of the time. We are considering here an approach to arriving at worthwhile approximations to a best way to act. This approach can be described as "virtue ethics," because it relies upon desirable traits in making moral judgments rather than a set of rules about how to act. I presume that the four traits allow for empirical investigation of the degree to which they are being satisfied.
The Principle Stated: We ought to act so as to maximize the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality. Power is the capacity to control the internal and external environment. Satisfaction means the experience of fulfillment--whether it occurs as the fulfilling of a desire, the successful completion of an intentional activity, or the exhibition of a natural or acquired skill. Reality means awareness of the way things are. Power, Satisfaction, and Reality are taken as the three ultimate values. Note that right action requires maximization of the totality of the three. If you want to understand someone's action, consider what (in some detail usually) it offers the person in terms of each of the three values. And if you think the person acted wrongly, you should be able to explain it in terms of their failing to maximize the totality of power, satisfaction, and reality. You probably will find yourself relying heavily on reality claims. This approach does not carry with it a guarantee of reaching general agreement on what maximizes the totality of the three values; but it has the advantage of turning a moral judgment into a series of factual claims to be investigated. This approach can be described as "principle ethics," because it provides a specific rule to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions.
Which is superior: Virtue Ethics or Principle Ethics? I advocate the importance of both. That's why you see both (1) and (2) here. (For more on this, go to the sections "Obedience to Principles" and "Cultivation of Virtue" in My Thoughts: The Good Life.) In addition, I support even more approaches. Since values are such a pervasive part of our lives, we cannot rely simply on philosophical treatises and succinct formulas. Philosophers make important contributions. Yet, almost any field of intellectual endeavor raises moral issues. So do government actions. There also is an important role for personal experiences, for social media, for news media accounts, and for the morality plays laid out in literature and drama. I am not making a blanket endorsement of all the diverse perspectives and assertions that turn up in these sources. I just want to emphasize that philosophers do not have a monopoly on the task of moral advancement.
I plan to take up just one problem, namely, the need to associate truth and falsity with a scale of probabilities. We can make an absolute distinction between the meanings of true and false; but we very seldom have absolute evidence for the truth or falsity of statements. Instead, we generally need to settle for differing degrees of probability. It is useful to have a probability scale:
Absolutely Certain (100) signifies that a rational person cannot deny the claim to truth or falsity. There is no possibility that the claim to truth or falsity can be incorrect.
Nearly Certain (97-99) signifies that a rational person accepts the claim to truth or falsity on the basis of overwhelming, relevant evidence―although there is still the possibility that the claim can be wrong.
Highly Probable (75-96) signifies that a rational person accepts the claim to truth or falsity on the basis of a preponderance (superior amount) of relevant evidence. For a claim to be a fact in science, it should be at least highly probable; but it does not need to be an absolute certainty. It also is not necessary to establish absolute certainty in order to say that a claim is a proven fact.
Probable (50-74) signifies that a rational person accepts the claim to truth or falsity to be more probable than improbable, based on available evidence.
Plausible (10-49) signifies that (a) the claim makes sense in a reasonable way to a typically rational person; (b) a typically rational person would not be especially surprised if additional evidence turned up that greatly increased the claim's probability; and (c) the countering, or opposing, claim is not more than highly probable.
Possible (1-9) signifies that a rational person regards the claim to truth or falsity to be extremely unlikely, although it cannot be entirely excluded as a possibility.
Impossible (0) signifies that a rational person cannot accept the claim to truth or falsity. There is no possibility that the claim to truth or falsity can be correct.
(Note: The numbers in parentheses provide a sense of relative degrees of evidence, and our relative degree of confidence in the probability assessment; but, ordinarily, there is no exact way of measuring these probabilities in practice. Statistical analyses can provide exact measurements of available data, for example, standard deviation, but not absolute measures of the ultimate truth or falsity of statements.--RY)
There are statements in pure mathematics and pure logic to which we assign absolute certainty--for example, "2 + 2 = 4," "A is A," or "If one asserts that 'Statement P implies statement Q' is true and also asserts that 'Statement P' is true, then assertion that 'statement Q' is true follows." When we switch from pure mathematics and pure logic to the world however, absolute certainty is rarely, if ever, attainable. Consider this example. I ask students in a classroom , "How many of you would agree that the truth of the following statement is absolutely certain, "There is no hippopotamus in this room right now"? I make clear that I mean a living, adult-sized hippo--not a small picture, or a ceramic replica, of a hippo in my pocket. Several hands almost always go up. (Many students are reticent about putting their hands up, and some figure that I must have a trick up my sleeve.) I then ask a series of questions to which there is a series of "yes" answers. Is it possible that there is life on other planets? Is it possible that it's intelligent life? Is it possible that these beings are more advanced in intelligence than we are? Is it possible that these beings could land on earth? Is it possible that they could have developed a sensory shield to place around the hippopotamus so that it is in the room but we cannot sense it? We might try to eliminate this last possibility by filling the room with crates to take up all the space. But then isn't it possible that, although the hippo was adult-sized initially, these beings also could have developed a shrinking process by which the hippo gets smaller as objects get near it? Admittedly, the last two possibilities are especially far-fetched; but that does not mean that they are impossible. With other objections, we can come up with other possibilities. So it's not absolutely certain there's no hippopotamus in the room.
(Note: The hippo statement comes from a famous professor-student encounter between two of the twentieth century's most important philosophers, Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein--although I take the example in a different direction here.--RY)
So how should we deal with the scarcity of absolute certainty? Answer: There really is no significant problem as long as we have the Probability Scale. As an ideal goal, we might prefer to reach absolute certainty. But a rational person functions quite well judging and acting in terms of near certainties and high probabilities, while being much more skeptical about mere possibilities. For the hippo example, it would be exceedingly strange for someone to walk away with the view that there is no way of making a judgment about whether or not there is a hippo in the room. There is very likely a considerable amount of evidence that can be cited for claiming there is no hippo there, and no evidence for the actual existence of the sensory shield and the shrinking process. There is not even any reliable evidence for advanced beings from some other planet having visited the earth.
Scientific methods exemplify reliance on the Probability Scale very well. The Scale both reflects the success of science in accumulating reliable evidence for directing our judgments and actions and also the skepticism that makes allowances for innovation.
(1) The term "fact" applies once a claim reaches the highly probable range. In the words of scientist Stephen Jay Gould, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
(2) Plausibility is a fascinating level, although we need to recognize that its status is still less than probable. Persons may choose to direct important parts of their lives in terms of what is merely plausible. For example, the philosopher William James argued for religious belief on the ground of its being a reasonable "maybe."
(3) Extremely unlikely events can, and do, occur. But you cannot count on them, because the overwhelming majority of extremely unlikely events do not occur. So there can be a winning ticket in a PowerBall lottery; but it pales to nearly nothing in comparison with the number of losing tickets. Similarly, in science, there can be a wild idea that reaches highly probable status; but there will be much more numerous wild ideas that remain at the low range of the Probability Scale.
(4) Even well thought out claims for absolute certainty can lose that status. Consider the significance of evolution on the Design Argument. For centuries, many of the world's best minds held that the Design Argument established God's existence with absolute certainty. Evolution, however, explains how a complex order of things can come about without the need for a pre-designing intelligence. In terms of the Probability Scale, evolutionary explanation moves the Design Argument from absolute certainty to mere plausibility. That is, the claim, "God is still behind the evolutionary process," may be plausible; but it is a much weaker claim now than absolute certainty.
(5) The Probability Scale is useful in laying to rest this type of poor reasoning: "As long as a claim is not absolutely certain, things can be otherwise. Therefore, since there is doubt. persons are justified in holding any preferred, competing claim as being just as legitimate." The Probability Scale makes clear that all claims short of absolute certainty are not equal. Some are much more probable than others. A rational person's judgment should reflect those probabilities.
Confining the meaning of "knowledge" to "absolute certainty" strikes me as extremely misleading, because it assigns well-supported statements to the class of The Unknown. That is, knowledge as absolute certainty sets up an absolute distinction between two classes, The Known and The Unknown. We need more subtle distinctions. In actuality, knowing is more a relative term; that is, there are differing degrees of knowing. The Probability Scale supplies that subtlety. Persons have much to gain by considering probabilities when they make claims about truth or falsity.