KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA31 (vanFraassen / Feyerabend)

Commentary 20 (to C19 McCaffrey)

( ANOTHER NAIL )
by Dewey Dykstra, Jr.
16 October 2003, posted 21 October 2003

<1>
One way of deciding if one thinks another shares one's understanding of something is to look at another's paraphrase of a written piece. If one agrees that the paraphrase means the same as the original, then one takes this agreement as evidence that one's understanding can be taken as shared with the other. If one does not agree, then one tends to decide that the other person has not constructed the same understanding and one is not understood.

<2>
In C19 to TA31 McCaffrey gives us the opportunity to use this method in order to decide on the degree to which a taken as shared understanding of the rc view exists. In C19 to TA31 he writes the following two paragraphs:

McCaffrey:

Von Glaserfeld, in response to my same comments, writes that "Christians cannot be blamed for justifying their dismissal of the theory of evolution by saying that it is not confirmed by the bible. But they also claim that the bible tells THE Truth, and this is a claim that may rest on faith but cannot be justified rationally."

McCaffrey:

To my mind the above quotation could be written as "Radical Constructivists cannot be blamed for justifying their dismissal of MIR by saying that it is not confirmed by the myriad of scholarly papers that support their view. But they also claim that these papers tell THE Truth ("in an as-if or working manner"... the only kind of 'truth' such people can believe in), and this is a claim that may rest on faith but cannot be justified rationally."

<3>
The second sentence in the second of the two paragraphs above is not what someone using a rc view would say or write. As such there appears not to be an understanding of rc that can be taken as shared. While they would probably agree that the second half of this compound sentence could be interpreted as consistent with their view, they would not feel the same way about the first half of the compound sentence. In other words, their notion is that what we make of experience is merely what we make of it. What we make of it is our construct, a mental entity, which we have no way of knowing any real correspondence between this construct and what might "cause" our experience. We take this as a starting conjecture which could be a claim that might be seen as "rest[ing] on faith." But, in rc this is not promoted as truth of any sort, not even in an as-if working manner. Truth is just not the issue, not the point in rc. For this reason, it McCaffrey's construct of rc appears as not taken as shareable by me nor I expect von Glasersfeld or Müller.

<4>
In the metaphor I tried to use (hammer/nail), rc is not a nail but a bolt. Instead of a hammer, one uses a wrench or a spanner for the bolt that is rc. In other words, one applies logic from particular initial assumptions and gets a particular interpretation of knowledge and thinking and one has McCaffrey's view. As he writes in C19 to TA 31: "'Rationality' is an embedded feature of world views and not an independent standard which can be turned to when you want to show that you're 'right'." -- hammer as force applied to nail from a particular starting point. If one starts from a different set of particular initial assumptions and applies logic one gets a different point of view, a rc view is the result (see TA 17) -- spanner as force applied to bolt from a different starting point than the hammer does. The initial assumptions are just that, assumptions. In rc we acknowledge that these are choice of belief. As such "resting on faith" might even be seen to be too strong a description. We point out that any initial assumptions have the same status--choice of belief.

<5>
Clearly, McCaffrey does not see the same thing in the paragraph I quoted in C17 from Müller (C13) that I see. For me this is additional evidence that we do not take as shared an understanding of rc. I do not accept McCaffrey's point with respect to the paragraph as established. I guess we'll have to hope for some input from Müller to see whose "paraphrase" he takes as shared.

<6>
There is a difference between describing the application of one's view to some example to illustrate one's view and the claim that one is right or that others must accept it and change their ways. When all statements are taken as attempts to prove or state truth, it appears we have McCaffrey's view in mind. In rc, since truth is not appropriate, then no statement is promoted as proof or statement of truth. In rc we do not speak or write to prove what we say. We speak, write or act to explain what makes sense to us, what for us has functional fit. If this is not understood, then rc is not understood.

<7>
I am sorry that the words I have written (C17) appear not to have been understood. I hope that these new ones might contribute to understanding. Please remember there is a difference between understanding and agreement or acceptance. I do not press for agreement or acceptance, merely understanding. I leave it to the reader to decide to decide to agree, to accept or not to agree or not to accept. Sadly, it does not appear understanding of rc that can be taken as shared has been achieved.

---------------------------------------------

Dewey Dykstra