Journal of Philosophy, Inc
Journal of Philosophy, Inc
Journal of Philosophy, Inc
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods.
http://www.jstor.org
mentalist and his critics. The way to this task is indicated by the
fact that for the instrumentalist as for the realist, logic is the essence
of philosophy.
Instrumentalism considers its most positive achievement to be the
capacity to bring order and system into a world of shifting occur-
rences. It is the necessity to relate things which makes a logic neces-
sary at all, and in the fact that instrumental logic is able to do this
lies its fundamental significance. Instrumental logic is not a self-
subsisting activity indulged in for its own sake; rather, it is pur-
posive and makes for some factual reconstruction indicated by the
emergence of some actual problem. Its function is to carry us over
from one event to another, making our world meaningful and our
actions with respect to it possible and worth while. The essence of
Jogic is to give meaning to objects and events by way of evaluating
them, and this means to connect them with our previous and present
experience. This kind of logic gives thought its wings, not the logic
of absolute relations.5 And to borrow an excellent description from
Russell, instrumental logic "brings with it-as a new and powerful
method of investigation always does--a sense of power and a hope
of progress more reliable and better grounded than any that rests on
hasty and fallacious generalizations as to the nature of the universe
at lar(ge."0
The process of giving meaning to objects and their relations is
the work of the categorization function in the course of scientific
analysis and synthetic generalization. These last-menytioned proc-
esses refer to the way in which we start with a specific happening,
say the explosion of a chemical substance which for the present con-
fuses our world of reality, and end with a solution of our defined
problem and the consequent enlargement of reality. It is at this point
that the instrumentalist unblushingly asserts that he constantly
creates7 his world anew.8 And this is because for him the world is a
denotative term for men, metals, electricity, steam, and all other
things forces and processes with which he actually deals. It is not
absurd to expect the public to believe that man can transform his
world in order to further his activity, since everybody can see it
done. To deny the possibility of this is to deny the function and
4Cf. Russell: Scientific Method in Philosophy, pp. 33, 239 and elsewhere.
5Cf. Russell: op. cit., p. 59.
6 Ibid., p. 30. Cf. Dewey's criticism of Russell's problem of the "world,"
Essays in Experimental Logic, Chap. XI.
7 Note that this creationi is always a tranisformation of crude facts ilato
cvery-(lay knowledge, arid(scienitific facts and( laws. The problem of the universe
at large as formulate(d by the idealist and realist is never involved.
8 Cf. Caldwell: Pragmatism and Idealis-m, p. 135.
not."'" And Montague might have added that these laws were just
the same thousands and thousands of centuries before Athens. In at-
tempting to find some meaning in this statement we might begin by
asking whether the new realist means to say that he believes un-
critically there must be changeless laws of space and number and so
on throughout the whole range of science. The question is suggested
by the fact that Montague mentions Euclid in connection with the
laws of space, and of course Montague would hardly care to say that
the Euclidean law is an immutable law of space.20 He probably
would be just as unwilling to say that Lobatchewsky's law is an abso-
lute law of space, and if so the result is that Montague stands for
absolute laws which merely "are," but which nobody knows and
which have nothing to do with science. But no, Montague says we
know these absolute laws, while only the Athenians did not. There
are two questions raised here; the first is why doesn't Montague state
what these. absolute laws are; LeRoy, Mach, Duhem, Poincare and
others were forced to confess their inability to find them. The second
question is what right has Montague to declare that in the two thou-
sand years ahead of us there won't be such progress made in the dis-
covery of absolute laws as in the two thousand years past.
But let us not hold Montague too rigidly to his statement. He
might with excellent ground argue against the extreme contingentists
who seem to deny any stability in science. Montague might then
mean that we do not know any absolute laws but that unless there
were such laws, events would not occur as they do. In other words
Montague might mean that there must be laws, in the sense that the
idealist thinks there must be a world, behind phenomena. Professor
Dewey has convincingly discussed this situation.21 He refers to the
case of a man who has been rescued from drowning under peculiarly
precarious circumstances. A bystander remarks that now he is a
saved man. "Yes," replies someone, "but he was a saved man all the
time, and the process of rescuing, while it gives evidence of the fact,
does not constitute it." Dewey is discussing the problem of the
truth of ideas, but the illustration has point here. The reaflist seems
to believe that whatever happens, happens because of immutable
laws, and not that because things happen thus and thus we can frame
by induction various laws; and thus he differs from the instrumental-
ist who considers that were it not for pulling the man out of the
water, there would have been no saved man. The ultimate laws of
19 Montague: Studies in the History of Ideas, p. 236.
20 Note that he has just said the Athenians did not know these absolute
laws, but I mean to suggest that there might be good reasons for not taking the
Euclidean law as the absolute one.
21 Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and other Essays, p. 143.
laws are made for the guidance and enlargement of action that they
are made universal, in the sense that they answer to all, though not
precisely to any specific fact. Thus, to borrow some examples from
Aliotta, "according to the laws of pure mechanics, a pendulum
should continue its isochronous oscillations to all eternity, whereas
it stops after a certain time; a projectile thrown in a straight
line should pursue the same direction with a uniform motion
ad infinitum, whereas in reality we see it fall after having de-
scribed a parabola."22 These laws are rigid and independent in so
far as our evaluations of things are rigidly determined with refer-
ence to the actual things from which they are abstracts and in-
terpretations. This condition accounts for the difference in abso-
luteness of scientific laws. The fact is that all laws, being after all
laws of things observed, are subject to modification, and revision.23
These modifications are the natural consequen,cesof meeting with new
phenomena in the ordinary course of human life. The conflicts of
science are occasioned by -thediscovery of an exception to a law which
was formulated on the basis of certain observed facts. In such cases
the laws are expanded to include the new phenomena. It is because
the new realist fails to appreciate the true nature of a scientific law
that he assumes that there are 'conflicts;between immutable laws an;d
perceptual facts, or between reason and sense. To quote Montague
as an example, we find that what he considers a conflict between a
law and a perceptual fact, is the type iof puzzle which Zeno first
formulated.24
The instrumentalist is far from denying the independence of real-
ity, but when this independence signifies anything he considers it a
limiting conception, in the same sense that the law of conservation of
matter or energy is a limiting con,ception. It is a formulation of re-
lated events which makes for freedom and variety of action and
knowledge. There is nothing arbitrary or artificial about these laws,
since the scientist is dealing with actual things, well named by Poin-
care crude facts; these crude facts stimulate the scientist to evaluate
them as scientific facts, and to formulate them into scientific laws.
Of course Poincare is seriously at fault in thinking that all the sci-
entist does is to create the language in which he enunciates facts.25
The evaluations of the scientist consist of a working over of the spe-
cific crude facts by comparison and testing into a scientific fact,
22 The Idealistic Reaction against Science, p. 338.
23 It is because Russell considers the laws of science as entirely without re-
lation to actual empirical happenings, that he thinks these laws absolute. Cf.
Principles of Mathematics, p. 493.
24 Cf. Studies in the History of Ideas, pp. 228 ff.
25 The Foundations of Science, p. 332.
some purposes we may think that things are absolutely static and
without possibility of variation, while for others we may not make
any such assumption. In a general way we think of the theoretical
phases of science as checks on the practical pursuits; so the possibili-
ties of changing our technique of investigation are not precluded by
a prejudice of the case. The theiolreticalor philosophical determina-
tions then, are in a way relatively ultimate, complete and final; that
is, they remain unchanged, pending the discovery of new facts.35
This domain of theoretical science is a genuine speculative realm,
in which the motive of practical accomplishment plays only such a
part as to allow us to say that the phenomena involved are continuous
with those of the specific sciences. In following lout the function of
the categories as the instrumentalist uses them, we find that the
philosophical categories break across the boundaries of the specific
sciences such as physical, biological and psychological, and determine
phenomena on the basis of the factual contribution of all of these.
Within the doomainof the special sciences and various phases of prac-
tical life the use of categories peculiar to each domain must be rigidly
adhered to. We can not fail to recognize the striking incongruity of
using teleological categories as evaluations in the field of mechanics.
An important implication throughout the discussion of the in-
strumentalist's doctrine of categories is the significant place which
consistency and correspondence play in the use of them. In the first
place because the pragmatic attitude is an evaluation of actual things
the evaluation must correspond to the concrete things evaluated.
This is not of course a correspondence between mutually exclusive
elements, but in the practical manipulation 'of science the categories
stand over against actual things.36 In the second place, since the
values are primarily instruments for the enlargement of our con-
tacts with the world of things, there must be a consistency in our
attitudes. If our interest is merely to control a specific phenomenon,
it is only necessary that the particular categforiesreferring to it must
hold together. We may thus have an indefinite number of categori-
zation systems. But if our interest is theoretical, and we wish, for
example, to test our evaluation -of the substance of things, as energy
or electricity, then there must not be within this d'omain any con-
tradictions. On the one hand, since we are not interested in any ab-
solute world presupposed prior to experience,37 we may very well
35 The practical solutions of science as compared with the theoretical are
fleeting and tentative.
36 We have indicated above that a scientific category does not refer to any
particular thing.
37 What Dewey calls creational and eschatological interests, this JOURNAL,
XII., p. 354.
out that these sensations are themselves abstractions from things and
can not therefore be their underlying reality. Sensations are cate-
gories referring to certain specific qualities of things during the
course of their interpretation. It is clear that the instrumentalist is
a frank and consistent, naive, or common sense realist, and takes as
his ultimates the crude facts of every-day experience. He takes to
be real only that which can be observed, tested, and made to yield
conviction by proving genuine in the course of experimentation.
And thu.s because the instrumentalist is not an idealistic creator
nor possessed of a transcendental reason capable of grasping abso-
lute reality in the new realistic manner, he does not set over against
his philosophical method an impossible task. And finally, since in-
strumental logic is the method of science it is submitted to thinkers
upon its merits. What is claimed for it is that it will increase man's
capacity to understand and control phenomena, that is, real things.
In support of this claim we may point out that the critics of instru-
mentalism have never really disputed it, but have attacked the prag-
matic attitude because it can not yield absolute reality. Our study
has indicated that absolute reality is an unsound fabrication. Is it
fair then, to condemn the instrumental method because it can not
find phantoms that it does not seek?
J. R. KANTOR.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.
SOCIETIES