FROM METAPHYSICS TO LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY
331
Richard Garner:
Thank you, Professor Stent. Who would like to start
the discussion?
Susan Haack:
I'd like to, by reminding the chairman and the rest of you
of that nice Leibnizian riddle: "What's the difference between an optimist
and a pessimist?-They both think this is the best of all possible worlds."
I think there is such a thing as honest inquiry, it is possible to find out by
investigation how things are. So I think I am the optimist; unlike Richard
Rorty, Steve Fuller, etc., who say it's all a matter of solidarity, it's all pol–
itics, there is no such thing as honest inquiry.
Since Professor Machan and I both used the word "scientific," but not
in the same way, I am somewhat uneasy about having given no explana–
tion of how I used the word. "Scientific" is ambiguous; the word has two
quite different uses. One is descriptive, used simply to refer to those disci–
plines classified as sciences by deans, librarians, etc.-physics but not
philosophy, chemistry but not history, and so on. But "scientific" also has
an honorific use, as an all-purpose term of epistemic praise, meaning
"strong, reliable, good." That's why people studying management, librari–
anship, etc., want their disciplines to be called "Management Science,"
"Library Science," etc.-because of the halo effect of the honorific usage,
which has grown up because of the successes of the natural sciences. I used
the word descriptively.
This leads me to Professor Stent's paper, which I think has more in
common with what I had to say than appeared on the surface. The natur–
al sciences have achieved remarkable successes. That's why we use the word
"scientific" in an honorific way. But there is no guarantee that this success
will continue. Its continuing success depends on sustaining intellectual
integrity, which is fragile. I have begun to wonder about those words,
"integrity," "wholeness." Why do we call intellectual integrity by a word
which connotes wholeness? Because it is a matter of the intellect and the
will working together rather than pulling against each other-so that one
is motivated not by one's wishes, hopes or fears, but by a genuine desire to
figure things out. The concept of intellectual integrity, much neglected by
epistemologists, seems to me more and more important; and intellectual
integrity itself seems to me more and more an ideal, achievable but
diffi–
cult. We disregard the conditions under which it flourishes at our peril. So
in
another sense, I suppo e I am a pessimist. I do see the possibility of the
jungle of irrationality closing around us if we don't understand and keep
hold of that fragile wholeness of intellect and will.
Speaker:
Russians are good riddlers too. They ask what's the difference
between a pessimist and an optimist and the answer is that the pessimist
thinks things can't get any worse and the optimist thinks they can.
