This essay proposes to differentiate between science and philosophy on the evidence that the truth of scientific, or, more generally, empirical, statements is perspectival whereas the truth of a philosophical statement is not. A perspectival truth depends upon a perspective in the sense that it may no longer be acceptable after the point of view which determines a perspective has been changed to another. Accordingly, the admission of perspectival truth requires the existence of alternative perspectives. The existence of alternative perspectives (...) does not mean that every statement which is true in one of them is false in another. Some statements, to be called perspectivally invariant, remain true regardless of the perspective. But the admission of perspectival truth requires at least one statement to be true in one perspective but false in an alternative perspective. Two perspectives, no matter how different in other respects, will not be called alternative unless they involve perspectival truth. The point is important. For no one denies that perspectives differ with regard to their heuristic value, i.e. no one would deny that a certain point of view may lead us to findings which from a different point of view might remain indiscernible and therefore undiscovered. But the opponents of perspectival truth and of alternative perspectives argue, with W. R. Dennes, that once a truth has been established the same finding can be acknowledged by a true statement in any other perspective although the acknowledgment may call for a restatement in a different idiom or language. The issue is between the admission of perspectival truth, on the one hand, and the contention of interperspectival translatability of truth, on the other. (shrink)

The pragmatic conception of truth, anticipated by Henry David Thoreau and developed by C.S. Peirce and subsequent pragmatists, is proposed as a useful analogy for characterising 'sustainability.' Peirce's definitions of 'truth' provides an attractive approach to sustainability because (a) it re-focuses discussions of truth and objectivity from a search for 'correspondence' to an 'external world' (the 'conform' approach) to a more forward-looking ('transform') approach; and (b) it emphasises the crucial role of an evolving, questioning community in the conduct of inquiry. (...) Any successful definition of sustainability must share these characteristics with Peircean truth. While Peirce and John Dewey never reconciled their disagreements regarding the nature and task of 'inquiry', a pragmatist resolution of their differences is offered, arguing that we need both a logic of management sciences (logica utens) and a logic of pure science (logica docens), which (perhaps among other differences) respond very differently to uncertainty. It is shown that adaptive management – can be understood as a first approximation of a logica utens for social learning in pursuit of solutions to environmental problems, and it is suggested that a pragmatist, transform approach to inquiry such as Dewey's may provide a way around the 'fact-value' gulf. (shrink)

Many of our ordinary beliefs about the world around us are a result of inference from more fundamental beliefs. Foundationalists in epistemology have thought that, if these ordinary beliefs are to be rationally justified, the chain of inferential justification must terminate in a belief that is justified noninferentially. Foundationalists, of the internalist variety, have thought that the most plausible candidates for ending the regress of empirical justification are experiential states, the justifying features of which the believing subject is aware. The (...) Sellarsian dilemma, taking its name from philosopher Wilfrid Sellars, has been a persistent argument against foundationalist theories of epistemic justification. There have been various formulations of the dilemma over the years, but in its most general form it says that for any construal of an experiential state where the experiential state provides justification, the experiential state will need further justification. Sellars thought that an experience, all by itself, cannot provide justification unless we apply concepts to the experience. However, the application of concepts is judgmental and conceptual judgments, like beliefs, require further justification. So, the experiential state construed this way would perpetuate the regress it was designed to terminate. On the other hand, if the experiential state is construed such that it is not in need of justification, then it cannot itself provide justification. Both options are devastating to a foundationalist epistemology. My thesis is that a solution to all forms of the Sellarsian dilemma is to require for foundational justification direct awareness of the fit between one's conceptual judgment and the justifying experiential state. I concede that one must conceptualize one's experiential states for these states to play an epistemic role. However, I argue that conceptual judgments of this sort are the foundations. The importance of this solution is that it not only terminates the regress of justification but it also captures the primary intuitions that motivate internalism and foundationalism. This is to say that although I have framed my account as a response to the Sellarsian dilemma, it is not merely an ad hoc patch that avoids what stood as a serious problem. Instead, it is a return to what has motivated and what I take to be most persuasive about internalist foundationalism. (shrink)