Boghossian on Constructivism about Rational Explanation

Abstract

AbstractPaul Boghossian regards constructivism about the explanation of belief as one of the theses espoused by the constructivist picture of knowledge. The strong version of this thesis assumes the cause of belief exclusively social and gives no place to epistemic reasons and its weak version while making room for epistemic reasons, never considers them sufficient without the intervention of social influences. Boghossian explicitly considers the strong version of this thesis to be rooted in the Strong Program, but implicitly attributes its weak version to it. He tries hard to refute both versions; however, as I will indicate in this paper, his criticisms are based either on unsuccessful arguments or on a misconception of the Strong Program. Since, this program does not consider epistemic reasons ineffective or insufficient in creating belief; rather, it considers the reasons themselves socially constructed or constituted. Therefore, the Strong Program’s position does not undermine rational discourse and contrary to Boghossian’s claim, its proponents can argue in defense of themselves without committing any contradictions or falling into the trap of self-refutation. Keywords: Strong Program, David Bloor, Rational Explanation of Belief, Constructivism, Paul Boghossian, Symmetry tenet, Underdetermination  IntroductionFirst in his “What is social construction?” (2001), and then in his Fear of Knowledge (2006), Paul Boghossian criticized the social construction of knowledge. He attributed this conviction to the sociologists of scientific knowledge, and especially to the Strong Program’s advocates. In this paper, I assess his arguments from the same perspective. Constructivism about rational explanationThis thesis, according to Boghossian, argues that explaining why we have current beliefs always requires the intervention of social causes and factors, since epistemic reasons are never sufficient to explain them. The strong version of this view (SCE) denies the role of epistemic reasons in the causal explanation of beliefs thoroughly, and considers the correct explanation exclusively based on our social interests. Its weak version (WCE), however, holds that our epistemic reasons make some partial contribution to the causal explanation of our beliefs, while, our contingent social interests also need to be intervened. Boghossian’s criticisms of the constructivism about rational explanationBoghossian considers SCE to be derived from the Strong Program’s principle of symmetry accordingly the explanation of beliefs should always be symmetrical. In his view, this principle requires that only social interests be invoked to explain beliefs, rather than any appeal to epistemic reasons. Boghossian finds no reason in favor of this principle, but argues against it. Since this view, he says, unreasonably negates the causal role of epistemic reasons in creating belief, ignores the distinction between justified beliefs and unjustified ones, and makes the principle itself unjustified and self-refuting.Boghossian considers WCE to come from the thesis underdetermination of theory by evidence, and cites two sources for it: Kuhn’s doctrine of incommensurability, and Duhem’s thesis about auxiliary hypotheses. Boghossian argues that incommensurability of scientific paradigms, even if true, cannot result in WCE; since the situation is restricted to certain junctures in the history of science and does not encompass all our beliefs.As for the Duhem-thesis, Boghossian argues that the presence of auxiliary hypotheses in extracting testable predictions from theories has led Duhem and the constructivists to conclude that belief revision in science is not purely rational. Boghossian, however, argues that neither Quine’s arguments nor any other argument can defend Duhem’s thesis. Since some hypotheses in scientific experiments are more acceptable than others, and therefore, some revisions are more plausible than others. SCE and the principle of symmetryThe Strong Program’s symmetry tenet does not imply SCE to which Boghossian attributes it. He erroneously concludes from the program’s commitment to sociological explanations of beliefs that they can no longer be explained evidentially. Whereas the Strong Program regards the epistemic evidence itself a kind of social cause and constituted by it. Consequently, the sociological explanation of beliefs does not conflict with their rationality or accepting them by reason.Bloor argues for this claim that in reasoning, categorizing objects and determining whether a proposition corresponds with reality there is a kind of rule-following. According to him, the correct criterion for the implementation of rules—even mathematical or logical rules—is determined by consensus. Therefore, the consensus of experts is always present in all our rational beliefs and indicates the role of social interests in all types of knowledge. As a result, the Strong Program considers the same reasons that others give to justify propositions sufficient or effective in creating belief, while explaining the nature of these reasons differently. Thus, Boghossian arguments fail, and the symmetry principle is acquitted of the charge of ignoring the causal role of reasons in belief. WCE and the underdetermination thesisWCE which Boghossian implicitly attributes to the sociologists of scientific knowledge is not endorsed by them. Concerning incommensurability, Boghossian rightly says that this doctrine cannot support WCE. However, he did not say who has ever made the argument. At least the proponents of the Strong Program have never done so.In the case of Duhem’s thesis, contrary to Boghossian, the Strong Program holds that the same rational evidence and theoretical virtues that are used to prefer one theory over another have been constructed by social interests. Similarly, that scientists consider some experiments conclusive and some theories falsified requires a sociological explanation: socialization in a normal science tradition.This does not mean denying the role of reason or its adequacy and replacing it with social conditioning. Rather, it means that rational criteria are social constructs. As a result, Boghossian critiques here also aim in the wrong direction. Appraisal of Boghossian’s other account of social construction of beliefIn “What is Social Construction?”, Boghossian interprets social constructivists as claiming that social values, in addition to the context of discovery, are also present in the context of justification. Since, in this view, the rational is constitutively social; rather than considering the social as filling the gap left by the rational. He, however, finds this view impossible; for if all reasons depend on perspectives and contexts, then the claimants of this view become incoherent by trying to argue for others or convincing them to accept their own relativistic position. But Boghossian is wrong; this view simply obliges its proponents that their arguments will be credible only to those who live in more or less similar societies, and not to everyone in any society. ConclusionThe Strong Program is not committed to either strong (SCE) or weak versions of constructivism about rational explanation (WCE). This program, in contrast, has admitted a more effective version of social constructivism that has survived Boghossian’s attacks.