peanutbuttersandwiches: August 2010

Are notions of objective knowledge and truth really any more tenable than relativist and constructivist notions of such things?

A brief critique of Boghossian’s Fear of Knowledge

This paper could be construed, in part, as a critique of Paul Boghossian’s Fear of Knowledge. It will give both accolades where this is due as well as elaborate on certain fundamental disagreements with his primary conclusion.

It seems obvious that the social construction of knowledge about issues such as, for instance, the origins of matter must lead to a priori inconsistent ‘truths’ about an event that can surely not be a matter of opinion. Boghossian, therefore, has my sympathies in his pursuit to expose the deep fallacies of epistemic relativism. And ‘equal validity’ just cannot, as Boghossian wisely argues, effectively resist the accusation of the overt irrationality of holding that many beliefs could be true about, what seems to be accepted by all as, only one event.
However, on account of the difficulties of locating an absolute system of thought by which to judge which relative and specific conceptual network, or system of rules, is the correct one by which to, then, judge which beliefs are actually true, it becomes indeed hard to side step the relativist challenge. And the relativist succeeds, thus, to lock us into a somewhat sceptical quagmire. Or a ‘norm-circularity’, according to Boghossian.
The suggestion with this paper is that Boghossian would have done better to have ended his project with a counter argument which looks more like a sceptical position, rather than proceed to argue in favour of some sort of defence for knowledge based in the real possibility of objectively located knowledge and truth. Since, in doing the latter, he finds himself in an awkward position of having to resort to attacking a straw-man; weak and strong constructivism.
But winning ground here, which, naturally, he does very easily, unfortunately, does not get him to where he claims it does: that it seems to be intuitively true ‘that there is a way things are which is independent of human opinion, and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective’.

Dear Reader

On having been recently exposed, by a very astute and wonderful person, to a beautifully written (I cannot dream to compete) article in The Economist, I have decided to air my views. For your benefit; the article claims that it is a falsely held belief that our levels of intelligence have declined with the rise in internet usage.

Before I deliver my critique it would please me to give credit where credit is due. The article is, as already mentioned, exceptionally well articulated. Not enough can be said to give gratitude to the author for this feature. Then, N.V. (which is the only reference I can find to the author's name), is also very careful to give the opponents' views proper and generous representation. Great effort is made to illucidate the many points in favour of why the internet is a contributing factor to the decline in intelligence. N.V. also offers the reader the strongest case for the other side of the debate which, naturally, would make his victory all the more respectable and sweeter. The author alludes to the fact that the eloquence of founders of Facebook and Twitter may, very well, fare badly when compared with that of decently educated Victorians and Georgians. N.V. mentiones Carr's recent investigations into the decline of intelliegnce in America. The author boldly exposes how badly American children fare in reading, mathematics and science in OECD rankings in the world- particularly for an English speaking and developed country. I think that N.V. then states that the real reasons for this failure is known and accepted but the 'corrective measures' remain 'politically intractable'. I am, however, unclear as to whether the suggestion is that there are reasons for this decline in intelligence, but that the internet is being scapegoated because the 'real' reasons for, or problems giving rise to this phenomenon, are not solvable or that the phenomenon seems to have been misunderstood and, subsequently, misrepresented altogether. I think the author is making a case for a new type of intelligence: If intelligence is a function of a relationship between adaptability and changing environments, then a new generation's seeming lack of intelligence is merely a manifestation of a new type of thinking, suited to new environmental pressures. And these include the excessive availability of huge quantities of inferior quality information. The suggestion: that most of the older generation are measuring intelligence by outmoded and irrelevant standards. Pure sentimentality.

And it is precisely here where my primary complaint lies. It is not entirely clear to me whether N.V. is acknowledging that there is a decline in intelligence, but that it is not attributable to internet usage, or whether the author is claiming that there is no decline in intelligence at all? If the latter, then it seems fair to suggest that, in the event of there not being a decline in intelligence at all, we need not worry about tracking the causes, do we? However, taking the OECD rankings to be of some significance, let us assume that there are, according to those callibrations, the decline which N.V. either is or is not acknowledging.

Thus, we must, I hope you agree, continue from the premise that there is, indeed, some sort of ailment lurking in the intelligence of American youths, at least. But it is here that the thinking of N.V. does a loop, making it not unlike a little circular argument. The author then focusses attentions on debunking, very eloquently and impressively systematically, all the commonly held reasons for the drop in intelligence, but then does the extraordinary leap to concluding that there, for this reason, is no decline in intelligence.

N.V. needs to decide whether the evidence showing a decline in intelligence is being contested to start with, or whether he or she would like to contest some specific beliefs about the reasons therefore.

However, I am happy to assume that all the debunking is done on solid ground: So, the brain is wired for its potential intelligence before children are even able to use a computer. That Kindles (electronic books) have been extremely well received by society and that this must surely be an indication that people are, in fact, reading. And that people spend much less time on the internet than is suspected. However, if the author is correct, then surely the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence faced with (that there is a decline in intelligence and that people are reading more and spending less time on the internet than supected) is that if there were a lack of reading and an increase in internet usage these factors could not be blamed for the drop in intelligence. But what cannot be assumed is that, because the usual reasons given for the drop intelligence do not stand their ground that, therefore, the drop in intelligence does not exist.

Secondly, it is being acknowledged, herewith, that N.V. might be merely claiming that the 'decline in intelligence' is not a real decline but rather a change in type of intelligence. But this, to me, seems like side stepping the issue entirely. The accusors, of whom I consider myself one, are not claiming that the adaptation of society to changing circumstances is problematic. Nor is their chagrin directed at this, if this even be the case. The sort of intelligence which they are lamenting the loss of is the sort which has genuinely and quite evidently declined, and the suggestion is merely that this be a pity as it is a type of intelligence which man can well do with. Yes, it may be 'bookish' and analytical, but this type of intelligence is surely not mutually exclusive with the development of a new type of intelligence directed at current 'survival'.

My thinking is that the availability of expedient and bad quality information definitely has something to do with a general demotivation towards thinking of the kind which is an inch wide and miles deep- analysis. But I must concede this one point to the author: the hard and fast causal relationship attributed to the increase in internet information and a decline in an 'intelligence' is unsubstantiated and, therefore, a little ambitious. However, deeply critical and analytical thinking, in my view, is central to the continuing rationality of man, as well as scientific thinking and technological development we so deeply value as a species. So, the preservation of analytical thinking is not only important as a thing of beauty in its own right, but also as a means to an end.