Guarini, Marcello

Scholarship at UWindsor

University of WindsorScholarship at UWindsorOSSA Conference Archive OSSA 2May 15th, 9:00 AM - May 17th, 5:00 PMCommentary on RehgMarcello GuariniFollow this and additional works at: http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchivePart of the Philosophy CommonsThis Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at Scholarship at UWindsor. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information,please contact scholarship@uwindsor.ca.Guarini, Marcello, "Commentary on Rehg" (1997). OSSA Conference Archive. 91.http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA2/papersandcommentaries/91A COMMENTARY ON RELATIVISM, UNDERDETERMINATION, AND WILLIAM REHG'S RESEARCH DIRECTIONS MODELOF SCIENTIFIC RATIONALITYMarcello GuariniDepartment of PhilosophyThe University of Western Ontario©1998, Marcello Guarini William Rehg attempts to formulate an approach to the philosophy of science which is characterized by thepossession of universal standards of a sort; however, these standards are not "compellingly" rational. Moreover,he claims that insights from argumentation theory can be used to formulate a framework with universal but non-compelling standards. I will examine several views on the relationship between arguments and the standards fortheir evaluation. I will then use those different views to examine the framework Rehg has sketched.Consider the following views on relationship between arguments and the standards for their evaluation.Weak relativism or weak universalism: there are universal standards for good arguments such that (a) theyallow for the possibility that what counts as a good argument in one time and place does not count as good inanother time and place, and (b) they allow for the possibility that there may be a good argument for P in one timeand place and a good argument for not-P in the same time and place.1By universal standards I mean standards, procedural or otherwise, which are binding on all reasoning orrational beings. By a good argument for P I mean an argument which makes it reasonable to believe that P.With these terms being made clear, let us examine some of the other views which can be held on the relationshipbetween arguments and their standards of evaluation.Strong Relativism I: the standards for good argument vary from time and place to time and place. Morespecifically, a set of standards for good argument may be seen as correct for a social group in one time and placebut not correct for another social group in another time and place.Strong Relativism II: the standards for good argument vary from individual to individual.Strong Universalism: there are universal standards for good arguments such that (a) an argument is goodregardless of the time and place in which it is presented, and (b) it cannot be the case that there are goodarguments in a given time and place for both P and not-P.It is worth noting that each of these views can be transposed from the key of argument theory to the key ofphilosophy of science. Instead of talking about 'standards of evaluation for arguments' and the 'goodness ofarguments,' we can talk about 'standards of evaluation for research programs' (or theory choice or whatever)and the 'goodness or defensibility of research programs (or theory choice or whatever).' By carrying out thistransposition, we can come up with four views on the relationship between research programs (or theories orwhatever) and the standards for their evaluation.While the commitments of universalism are tolerably clear, the similarities and differences between Weak andStrong Relativism may be in need of further clarification. In my clarificatory discussion of these views, referencesto Strong Relativism should be taken as references to Strong Relativism I. Also, I will be discussing these viewsas transposed into the language of the philosophy of science.It may appear that both strong and weak relativism are committed to the views that (i) what counts as aworthwhile research program in one time and place may not count as a worthwhile research program in anothertime and place, and (ii) competing research programs defending conflicting views may both be worthwhile.However, the preceding claims appear to be true of strong and weak relativism as the result of an ambiguity. Wewill say that a research program is worthwhile if, and only if, it is reasonable to participate in it or otherwisesupport it. The weak relativist possesses the normative flexibility seen in (i) and (ii) in virtue of valuationalstandards which, though they are binding on all rational beings, are sufficiently liberal to allow for conflictingjudgements or research to be good. For example, research programs R and S—whether in the same time andplace or different times and places—may make conflicting claims, but the weak relativist can make thenormative assertion that they are both good provided that they both satisfy the universal standards of research,whatever those are. The strong relativist is committed to something stronger than the preceding claim. Let V1and V2 be two different sets of valuational standards. Say that V1 would find R a worthwhile program but not S,and V2 would sanction S as worthwhile but not R. The strong relativist can make the descriptive claim that Rand S are worthwhile relative to the valuational standards which find them to be good, V1 for R and V2 for S.However, the strong relativist would point out that according to V1, S is not worthwhile, and according to V2, Ris not worthwhile. There is no one correct set of standards according to which it would be rational or reasonableor worthwhile to pursue either or both R and S. If (a) and (b) are understood as claiming that R and S areworthwhile according to the correct set of standards, then they are true of weak relativism; if they are understoodas claiming that R is worthwhile according to one set of standards and S according to another, with there beingno way to adjudicate between the sets of standards, then (a) and (b) are true of strong relativism.2 These twointerpretations of (a) and (b) are incompatible. A specific example may help to clarify things further. Consider thecompetition between creationist and evolutionary research programs in biology. A weak relativist is able to saythat there may have been a time when people were rationally justified in pursuing either of those programs. Astrong relativist would be more likely to say that creationism was rational for creationists and Darwinism wasrational for evolutionary theorists, but that neither position was rational for members of the other camp. It islogically possible for the strong relativists to say that creationists and evolutionary theorists, whether of the pastor present, belong to a common community with common standards for the evaluation of theories or researchprograms. These are non-standard strong relativists. In principle, they could even say that everyone sinceFrancis Bacon subscribed to the same standards for empirical research. These strong relativists may be able tomake sense of how research programs making opposite claims can all be worthwhile; however, in practice, moststrong relativists tend not to be terribly interested in showing how competing research programs can be rationalaccording to a common set of valuational standards. The school William Rehg refers to as the Sociology ofScientific Knowledge (SSK) tends to be made up of strong relativists who are not interested in arguing thatcompeting research programs can be judged worthwhile on the basis of their members conducting researchaccording to a common set of standards. This is the standard or most common form of strong relativism one islikely to encounter.I take Rehg to be a weak relativist (or a weak universalist). It is clear he dislikes the relativism of the SSKschool, and it is clear that he thinks that the standards for evaluating scientific reasoning ought not to be"compellingly rationally", which appears to be a rejection of what I called strong universalism. Rehg wants aphilosophy of science with normative force and with the ability to find a non-trivial place for the social factorswhich influence the doing of science. If common procedural rules are subscribed to by the participants of ascientific dispute, then perhaps the rationality of the parties to the dispute can be evaluated by determining if theprocedural rules have been followed. Moreover, perhaps these procedural rules can allow for appeal not only totraditional epistemic virtues like empirical adequacy, coherence, and various kinds of simplicity, but to socialconsiderations as well. By recasting scientific dispute as being about which direction(s) research ought toproceed in or which research program or programmes ought to be supported, finding a place for the legitimacyof an appeal to social considerations in our procedural rules ought to be facilitated. An example might help tomake this a bit clearer.Consider the research being done on the influence of pre-natal exposure to androgens and estrogens on braindevelopment, behaviour, and cognitive abilities. (See Longino and Doell, 1983, for a series of references to therelevant literature.) According to one model, brain development as well as certain behavioural and cognitiveabilities are determined by pre-natal exposure to gonadal hormones. Call this the linear model (since there is asimple, one-way connection between hormones on the one hand and brain, behaviour and cognition on theother). According to a non-linear model, there are many different factors which may or may not restrict certainbehavioural and cognitive abilities. As long as the traditional epistemic virtues underdetermine the choice betweenthese two research programs3 , it would appear that a number of different positions could be held with respectto this research. One position which could be taken would claim the following: both research programs areworthwhile until one begins to vastly outstrip the other in terms of satisfying the traditional epistemic virtues.Notice that underdetermination has forced a shift towards examining research directions as opposed to theorychoice. The position just outlined does not choose one model over another; rather, it suggests that the programsdeveloping the models be allowed to compete until one demonstrates superiority over the other. While it may berational to participate in either program until one wins, how does the researcher decide which program toparticipate in if the choice is epistemically underdetermined? "By the use of non-epistemic values and socialconsiderations," is a possible answer. However, this may not be the end of the story. Social considerations mayalso underdetermine which program a researcher should sign on to. This is not a serious problem if it is rational tosign on to either program. However, there are, I think, situations where the underdetermining nature of socialconsiderations might be a problem for Rehg. Above, I outlined one way of responding to a situation wherechoice between competing research programs is underdetermined by traditional epistemic virtues—it may berational to participate or support either or both programs. Another response may go as follows: socialconsiderations may be used to argue that one research program ought to be funded while another ought not tobe. Given a context of limited resources, there may times when we have to decide who to fund and who not tofund. If the choice between competing research programs is underdetermined by the traditional epistemic virtues,and we are in a situation where a choice must be made, then social considerations must be brought into play. Butif social considerations also underdetermine the choice to be made, then there is no rational basis on which tochoose one research direction over another. It may be rational to choose either (as a weak relativist is in perfectposition to point out), but there is no basis on which we can say that one choice is superior. I do not see this as aserious problem 4, but I am not sure what Rehg would say. He makes two claims which, when taken together,require clarification: (1) "[T]he research decision making (RDM) model does not depend on relativistcommitments", and (2) "Relativism follows only if one can identify a weak spot in the very content of science,such as a gap between observation and theory". Taken together, these claims suggest that Rehg thinks that theRDM approach can close the gap between theory and evidence (which is the same thing as solving theunderdetermination problem). Above, I have argued that there may be situations where social considerationsmay not allow us to bridge this gap. I am not sure that this is a serious problem since it commits us to no morethan a weak relativism which may occasionally be able to give us no aid in situations where we must choosebetween programs. However, if Rehg was suggesting that such situations would not arise, then the RDM modelmay have limitations which he has not acknowledged. If he was s imply claiming that underdetermination doesnot commit us to standard forms of strong relativism, then the preceding should be taken as an attempt to clarifyhis position.Notes1. I am not claiming that there is a necessary connection between (a) and (b). It may very well be possible for (a)to be true but not (b), or for (b) to be true but not (a). This would allow us to multiply the kinds of weakrelativism or weak universalism. However, since those who are inclined to hold one of (a) or (b) usually hold theother, I have grouped them together. The reason the two usually go together is that the kind of weakness in a setof universal standards that leads to one of these claims usually leads to the other. It is a tricky matter to set up adefensible set of standards that will lead to one of the claims in question but not the other. 2. I admit that this latter option is a strained reading of (a) and (b), but I suspect that it, or something like it, isbehind the tendency to conflate strong and weak forms of relativism. 3. Not everyone would concede that the evidence and traditional epistemic virtues continue to underdeterminechoice between these existing research programs, but we can, for the sake of argument, imagine that we had toevaluate the different research programs early in their development, when the choice between them could moreplausibly be said to have been underdetermined. 4. For a discussion of different kinds of relativisms and the extent to which they may or may not be a problem,see Stich, 1990.  BibliographyLongino, Helen. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990._________. "Can There Be a Feminist Science?" Hypatia, 2, Fall 1987, 47-48.Longino, Helen, and Ruth Doell. "Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in TwoAreas of Biological Science." Signs, 9, Winter 1983.Okruhlik, Kathleen. "Gender and the Biological Sciences." Canadian Journal of Philosophy, supplementaryvol. 20.Rehg, William. "Argumentation Theory and the Philosophy of Science since Kuhn: The Rationality of TheoreticalAdvance." These Proceedings.Stich, Stephen. The Fragmentation of Reason. Cambridge MA and London England: MIT Press. A BradfordBook, 1990. View Paper by W. RehgView Index of Papers and CommentariesReturn to Main Menu

Commentary on Rehg

http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1938&context=ossaarchive

Commentary on Rehg

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholarship at UWindsor