-
9. The Rationale of Aporetic Variation
- University of Pittsburgh Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
133 The definitive task of aporetics is consistency restoration. Confronted with an inconsistent set of otherwise plausible propositions in any context of deliberation, it is only sensible to seek to maintain rational consistency. Something has to give way in the interests of coherence. And in general the reasonable approach here is to employ situationally appropriate right-of-way considerations to break the chain of inconsistency at its weakest link(s). And this sort of problem arises in a wide variety of cognitive situations—rational inquiry not least among them. With regardto thestandards ofprecedenceandpriorityforapory resolution, there are three distinctively different lines of approach: Thesis plausibility: The guide to priority is evidentiation—that is, thesis security in point of supportive grounding pivots on conformity with experience. Informativeness: The guide to priority is informativeness in answering questions. Explanatory power becomes the determi- 9 The Rationale of Aporetic Variation 134 The Rationale of Aporetic Variation native factor, so that generality and fundamentality come to the fore. Systematist: The guide to priority is coherentist philosophizing. This approach seeks the coordinated balance of a productive tension between the competing factors of security and informativeness. This overall situation is linked to a very fundamental principle of epistemology: There is in general an inverse relationship between the precision or definiteness of a judgment and its security; detail and probability stand in a competing relationship. Increased confidence in the correctness of our estimates can always be purchased at the price of decreased accuracy. We estimate the height of the tree at around 25 feet. We are quite sure that the tree is 25±5 feet high. We are virtually certain that its height is 25±10 feet. But we can be completely and absolutely sure that its height is between 1 inch and 100 yards. Of this we can be “completely sure” in the sense that we are “absolutely certain,” “certain beyond the shadow of a doubt,” “as certain as we can be of anything in the world,” “so sure that we would be willing to stake our life on it,” and the like. For any sort of estimate whatsoever there is always a characteristic trade-off relationship between the evidential security of the estimate, on the one hand (as determinable on the basis of its probability or degree of acceptability), and, on the other hand, its contentual definitiveness (exactness, detail, precision , etc.). A situation of the sort depicted by the curve of display 9.1 obtains with the result that a complementarity relationship of sorts obtains here as between definiteness and security.1 And there is much to be said for taking this line. After all, we want answers to our questions, but we want these answers to make up a coherent systematic whole. It is neither just answers (regardless of their substantiation) nor just safe claims (regardless of their lack of informativeness) we want but a reasonable mix of the two—a judicious balance that systematizes our commitments in a functionally effective way. [52.205.159.48] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 00:25 GMT) The Rationale of Aporetic Variation 135 Overall, however, the business of weakest-link determination functions rather differently in different areas of inquiry. And it does so in alignment with the particular purposive nature of the context of thought that is at issue. For the frailty at issue is contextually variable . Different cognitive enterprises have different aims and objectives in view, and this circumstance will control what is at issue with assertoric strength and weakness. The overall situation is surveyed in display 9.2. Thus, for example, the situation in systematist philosophizing is accordingly neither one of pure speculation, where informativeness alone governs conflict resolution, nor one of scientific/ inductive inquiry, where evidential coherence governs this process, but a judicious combination of the two. Increasing security Increasing definiteness �.�. The trade-off between security and definiteness in estimation Note: Given suitable ways of measuring security (s) and definiteness (d),the curve at issue can be supposed to be the equilateral hyperbola: s x d = constant. 136 The Rationale of Aporetic Variation ispLAy 9.2. Variant versions of the weakest-link principle and their rationale When an inconsistency in the wake of beliefs arises in the setting of And this happens in the wake of Then the weakest link will be Because in this particular context we prioritize the value of Empirical inquiry New discoveries The most weakly evidentiated Security Thought experimentation Thoughtexperimental assumptions The systemically least deeply entrenched Informativeness Counterfactual speculation...