Fear of Knowledge: The Case Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian
Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism
Have you ever wondered if there is such a thing as objective truth? Or if there are universal standards for rationality and knowledge? Or if science is just one of many ways of knowing the world? If you have, you are not alone. Many philosophers, scholars, and thinkers have debated these questions for centuries. And in recent times, a dominant view has emerged that challenges the common sense answers to these questions. This view is known as relativism or constructivism.
Fear.of.Knowledge.Against.Relativism.and.Constructivism.pdf.rar
In this article, I will introduce you to a book that critically examines and refutes relativism and constructivism. The book is called Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism, and it is written by Paul Boghossian, a professor of philosophy at New York University. Boghossian argues that relativism and constructivism are not only philosophically flawed, but also socially dangerous. He defends the intuitive view that there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we can have objective and reasonable knowledge of it.
If you are interested in learning more about this fascinating and important topic, read on. I will explain what relativism and constructivism are, why they are popular, what is wrong with them, and what is the alternative to them. I will also provide some frequently asked questions and answers at the end of the article.
What is Relativism?
Relativism is the view that truth, knowledge, or justification are not absolute or universal, but depend on some factor that varies from case to case. For example, some relativists claim that truth depends on the language or culture of the speaker, or on the perspective or framework of the thinker, or on the interests or values of the community. According to relativism, there is no single or objective way of describing or understanding reality, but rather many different and equally valid ways.
There are different forms of relativism, depending on what factor they take to be relevant for determining truth, knowledge, or justification. Some of the most common forms are:
Cultural relativism: The view that truth or morality depend on the norms or traditions of a particular culture or society.
Linguistic relativism: The view that truth or meaning depend on the conventions or rules of a particular language or system of representation.
Cognitive relativism: The view that truth or knowledge depend on the cognitive abilities or limitations of a particular agent or species.
Ethical relativism: The view that moral judgments depend on the preferences or feelings of a particular individual or group.
Aesthetic relativism: The view that judgments of beauty or taste depend on the personal preferences or standards of a particular individual or group.
Epistemic relativism: The view that justification or rationality depend on the standards or criteria of a particular epistemic system or community.
What is Constructivism?
Constructivism is the view that facts, reality, or nature are not given or fixed, but constructed or shaped by human activity. For example, some constructivists claim that facts are not discovered by observation or experimentation, but invented by theories or hypotheses. Or that reality is not independent of human perception, but dependent on human interpretation. Or that nature is not a stable and uniform domain, but a variable and contingent product of human intervention.
There are different forms of constructivism, depending on what aspect of reality they take to be constructed by human activity. Some of the most common forms are:
Social constructivism: The view that facts, knowledge, or reality are constructed by social processes, such as communication, negotiation, agreement, power, etc.
Historical constructivism: The view that facts, knowledge, or reality are constructed by historical events, such as revolutions, wars, discoveries, inventions, etc.
Cultural constructivism: The view that facts, knowledge, or reality are constructed by cultural factors, such as values, beliefs, norms, traditions, etc.
Linguistic constructivism: The view that facts, knowledge, or reality are constructed by linguistic factors, such as words, concepts, categories, metaphors, etc.
Cognitive constructivism: The view that facts, knowledge, or reality are constructed by cognitive factors, such as perception, reasoning, memory, ```html etc.
Personal constructivism: The view that facts, knowledge, or reality are constructed by personal factors, such as emotions, attitudes, preferences, etc.
Why are Relativism and Constructivism Popular?
Relativism and constructivism have become orthodoxy in vast stretches of the academic world in recent times. But why? What are some of the reasons why these views have gained so much support and influence? Boghossian suggests that there are at least three main reasons:
The appeal to diversity: One reason is that relativism and constructivism seem to respect and celebrate the diversity of human cultures, languages, values, and ways of knowing. They challenge the idea that there is a single or superior perspective that can claim authority or dominance over others. They promote tolerance and pluralism in a world that is increasingly globalized and interconnected.
The appeal to democracy: Another reason is that relativism and constructivism seem to support and enhance the democratic ideals of freedom, equality, and participation. They challenge the idea that there are experts or authorities who can dictate what is true or right for others. They empower individuals and groups to create and shape their own realities according to their own interests and values.
The appeal to history: A third reason is that relativism and constructivism seem to reflect and explain the historical changes and developments that have occurred in science, philosophy, and culture. They challenge the idea that there are fixed or eternal truths or principles that can guide our inquiry and understanding. They acknowledge the contingency and variability of human knowledge and reality in light of new discoveries, inventions, revolutions, etc.
These reasons may seem persuasive and attractive at first glance. But are they sufficient to justify relativism and constructivism? Boghossian thinks not. He argues that these views are not only unsupported by good arguments, but also undermine themselves by their own logic. He shows that relativism and constructivism are not only wrong, but also impossible.
What is Wrong with Relativism and Constructivism?
Boghossian's main goal in his book is to expose and refute the flaws and fallacies of relativism and constructivism. He focuses on three different ways of reading the claim that knowledge is socially constructed: one about facts, and two about justification. He calls them constructivism about facts, constructivism about justification, and relativism about justification. He argues that all three are fundamentally flawed.
The Problem of Facts
The first way of reading the claim that knowledge is socially constructed is to interpret it as saying that facts are socially constructed. This means that facts are not given by reality, but made by human activity. For example, some constructivists claim that facts about nature are not discovered by science, but invented by scientific theories or paradigms. Or that facts about morality are not determined by reason, but created by social norms or conventions.
Boghossian criticizes this view on two grounds. First, he argues that it is based on a confusion between facts and our beliefs about facts. He points out that there is a difference between saying that our beliefs about reality are influenced by social factors, which may be true in some cases, and saying that reality itself is influenced by social factors, which is absurd in most cases. He writes:
"To say of some apparently factual statement S that it is 'socially constructed' is not just to say something about how we came to believe S; it is also to say something about S itself: namely, that S fails to state a fact independent of our acceptance of S." (p. 33)
Second, he argues that it is based on a misunderstanding of the nature and role of scientific theories or paradigms. He points out that scientific theories or paradigms do not create facts out of thin air, but rather attempt to explain or predict facts that are given by observation or experimentation. He writes:
"Theories do not legislate what counts as a fact; they attempt to account for them." (p. 39)
Therefore, Boghossian concludes that constructivism about facts is untenable. Facts are not socially constructed; they are independent of human opinion.
The Problem of Justification
The second and third ways of reading the claim that knowledge is socially constructed are to interpret it as saying that justification is socially constructed or relative. This means that justification is not determined by objective or universal standards, but by social or subjective factors. For example, some relativists or constructivists claim that justification depends on the language or culture of the speaker, or on the perspective or framework of the thinker, or on the interests or values of the community.
Boghossian criticizes these views on two grounds. First, he argues that they are based on a confusion between justification and our beliefs about justification. He points out that there is a difference between saying that our beliefs about what justifies our beliefs are influenced by social factors, which may be true in some cases, and saying that what justifies our beliefs is influenced by social factors, which is absurd in most cases. He writes:
"To say of some apparently factual statement S that it is 'socially constructed' is not just to say something about how we came to believe S; it is also to say something about S itself: namely, that S fails to state a fact independent of our acceptance of S." (p. 33)
Second, he argues that they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature and role of epistemic systems or communities. He points out that epistemic systems or communities do not create justification out of thin air, but rather attempt to follow or apply justification that is given by reason or evidence. He writes:
"Epistemic systems do not legislate what counts as a reason for belief; they attempt to codify them." (p. 67)
Therefore, Boghossian concludes that constructivism and relativism about justification are untenable. Justification is not socially constructed or relative; it is independent of human opinion.
The Self-Defeating Nature of Relativism
One of the main problems with relativism is that it is self-defeating. This means that it contradicts itself or undermines its own validity. Boghossian shows this by applying the relativist's own logic to the relativist's own claims.
For example, suppose a relativist claims that truth is relative to language. This means that what is true in one language may not be true in another language. But then, what about the claim itself? Is it true in all languages or only in some languages? If it is true in all languages, then it contradicts itself, because it implies that there is at least one truth that is not relative to language. If it is true only in some languages, then it undermines itself, because it implies that there are other languages in which it is false or meaningless.
Similarly, suppose a relativist claims that knowledge is relative to culture. This means that what counts as knowledge in one culture may not count as knowledge in another culture. But then, what about the claim itself? Is it knowledge in all cultures or only in some cultures? If it is knowledge in all cultures, then it contradicts itself, because it implies that there is at least one knowledge that is not relative to culture. If it is knowledge only in some cultures, then it undermines itself, because it implies that there are other cultures in which it is ignorance or nonsense.
Therefore, Boghossian concludes that relativism is self-defeating. It cannot be consistently stated or defended.
The Paradox of Epistemic Relativism
Another problem with relativism is that it leads to a paradox. This means that it results in a contradiction or a circularity. Boghossian shows this by examining the implications of epistemic relativism for rationality and disagreement.
Epistemic relativism is the view that justification or rationality depend on the standards or criteria of a particular epistemic system or community. This means that what counts as a good reason for belief in one system or community may not count as a good reason for belief in another system or community.
But then, how can we rationally choose between different epistemic systems or communities? How can we decide which one is better or worse than another? According to epistemic relativism, we cannot. We can only judge an epistemic system or community by its own standards or criteria, not by any external or objective ones. But this leads to a paradox.
```html either, because it is just one of many possible epistemic systems or communities. We have no reason to think that it is true or justified.
On the other hand, if we reject epistemic relativism, then we must assume that there are some objective or universal standards or criteria for justification or rationality. We must assume that there is a way of evaluating different epistemic systems or communities that does not depend on any particular one of them. But this contradicts epistemic relativism itself.
Therefore, Boghossian concludes that epistemic relativism leads to a paradox. It cannot be rationally accepted or rejected.
What is the Alternative to Relativism and Constructivism?
After exposing and refuting relativism and constructivism, Boghossian presents and defends his positive view of knowledge and rationality. He argues that the intuitive, common sense view is correct: there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and we can have objective and reasonable knowledge of it.
The Objectivity of Facts
Boghossian defends the view that facts are objective. This means that facts are given by reality, not made by human activity. Facts are independent of human opinion, language, culture, perspective, framework, interest, value, etc. Facts are the same for everyone, regardless of their differences or preferences.
Boghossian supports this view by appealing to the correspondence theory of truth. This is the theory that truth is a relation between our beliefs and reality. A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact. A fact is something that makes a true belief true. For example, the belief that snow is white is true if and only if snow is white. Snow being white is a fact that makes the belief true.
Boghossian argues that the correspondence theory of truth implies the objectivity of facts. If truth is a relation between our beliefs and reality, then facts are not dependent on our beliefs, but on reality. Facts are not constructed by our beliefs, but constrain our beliefs. Facts are not relative to our beliefs, but determine our beliefs.
Boghossian also supports this view by appealing to the realist conception of science. This is the conception that science aims to discover objective facts about the world. Science does not invent or construct facts, but observes and experiments with facts. Science does not impose or create reality, but describes and explains reality. Science does not depend on human opinion, but on empirical evidence.
Boghossian argues that the realist conception of science implies the objectivity of facts. If science aims to discover objective facts about the world, then facts are not dependent on science, but on the world. Facts are not constructed by science, but revealed by science. Facts are not relative to science, but independent of science.
The Objectivity of Justification
Boghossian defends the view that justification is objective. This means that justification is determined by objective or universal standards or criteria, not by social or subjective factors. Justification is independent of human opinion, language, culture, perspective, framework, interest, value, etc. Justification is the same for everyone, regardless of their differences or preferences.
```html "Snow is white" is a synthetic truth.
Boghossian argues that the analytic/synthetic distinction implies the objectivity of justification. If there are two types of truths, then there are two types of justification: a priori justification and a posteriori justification. A priori justification is justification that does not depend on empirical evidence, but on reason alone. It is based on the meaning or logic of our beliefs. A posteriori justification is justification that depends on empirical evidence, not on reason alone. It is based on the correspondence or coherence of our beliefs with reality. Both types of justification are objective and universal, not subjective or relative.
Boghossian also supports this view by appealing to the normativity of reason. This is the idea that reason gives us binding rules for forming and revising our beliefs. Reason tells us what we ought to believe, given our evidence and arguments. Reason guides us to avoid logical fallacies and cognitive biases. Reason helps us to achieve consistency and clarity in our thinking.
Boghossian argues that the normativity of reason implies the objectivity of justification. If reason gives us binding rules for forming and revising our beliefs, then justification is not a matter of opinion, but of obligation. Justification is not a matter of preference, but of rationality. Justification is not a matter of perspective, but of validity.
Conclusion
In this article, I have introduced you to a book that critically examines and refutes relativism and constructivism. The book is called Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism, and it is written by Paul Boghossian. Boghossian argues that relativism and constructivism are not only philosophically flawed, but also socially dangerous. He defends the intuitive view that there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion, and that we can have objective and reasonable knowledge of it.
I have explained what relativism and constructivism are, why they are popular, what is wrong with them, and what is the alternative to them. I have also provided some frequently asked questions and answers below.
I hope you have enjoyed reading this article and learned something new and useful from it. If you are interested in reading Boghossian's book, you can find it online or in your local library or bookstore. It is a short and accessible book that will challenge your assumptions and stimulate your mind.
FAQs
What is the main difference betwe