Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications

361 Pages·2014·1.383 MB·English

by  John MacFarlane

Assessment Sensitivity
Context and Content
Series editor: François Recanati, Institut Nicod
Other titles in the series:
The Inessential Indexical
Onthe Philosophical Insignificance ofPerspective and the First Person
Herman Cappelen and Josh Dever
The Mirror of the World
Subjects,Consciousness, and Self-Consciousness
ChristopherPeacocke
Assessment
Sensitivity
Relative Truth and its
Applications
John MacFarlane
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©JohnMacFarlane2014
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2014
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2001012345
ISBN978–0–19–968275–1
Asprintedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
PREFACE
Thisbookisabouthowwemightmakesenseoftheideathattruthisrelative,
andhowwemightusethisideatogivesatisfyingaccountsofpartsofour
thoughtandtalkthathaveresistedtraditionalmethodsofanalysis.Although
thereisasubstantialphilosophicalliteratureonrelativismabouttruth,going
back to Plato’s Theaetetus, this literature (both pro and con) has tended to
focusonrefutationsofthedoctrine,orrefutationsoftheserefutations,atthe
expenseofsayingclearlywhatthedoctrineis.Theapproachherewillbeto
startbygivingaclearaccountoftheview,andthentousetheviewtosolve
someproblemsthathaveconcernedphilosophersandsemanticists.Themain
aimistoputrelativistsolutionstotheseproblemsonthetable,sothatthey
maybecomparedwithnon-relativistsolutionsandacceptedorrejectedon
theirmerits.Comparativelylittlespacewillbedevotedtoblanketobjections
tothecoherenceofrelativism,becausethesewilllargelybedispelledbya
clearstatementoftheview.
WhenIfinishedgraduateschool,Iwouldneverhaveguessedthatmyfirst
bookwouldbeadefenseofrelativetruth.Toproclaimoneselfarelativistabout
truth,Iassumed,wastoallyoneselfwiththekindofpostmodernistscepticism
abouttheobjectivityofsciencethatthephysicistAlanSokallampoonedin
hisfamoushoaxarticleforSocialText(Sokal1996b;Sokal1996a).Iregarded
relativismabouttruthashopelesslyconfused,easilyrefuted,andasuresign
ofdeficientintellectualcharacter.AndIwasnotaloneinthis:Ididnotknow
ofasingleprominentanalyticphilosopherwhoespousedrelativismabout
truth,oreventookitseriouslyenoughtospendmorethanafewpagesonit.
Whathappened?Ihavenotchangedmyviewthatthereisanobjective
world,orwecancometoknowaboutitusingthemethodsofscience.AndI
stillthinkthatmosttalkofrelativetruthhasbeenhopelesslymuddled.ButI
havebecomeconvincedthatrelativismabouttruthcanbemadephilosophi-
callyintelligible,eventohard-headedscientificrealists,andthatitisagood
toolforunderstandingpartsofourthoughtandtalkthatfallshortofbeing
fullyobjective.
Myownpathtorelativismbegannotwiththeusualworriesabouttaste
andmorality,butwithreflectionsonthesemanticsofcontingentstatements
vi Preface
aboutthefuture,inspiredmainlybyBelnapandGreen(1994).ByJuneof2002,
IhadconcludedthatthenaturalsettingforaBelnap/Green-styleapproachto
futurecontingentswasaframeworkinwhichtruthwasrelativizedtobotha
contextofuseandacontextofassessment.IpresentedthisideaatECAPIV
inLund,Sweden,whereIfoundafellowtraveler:MaxKölbel,whohadjust
finishedTruthWithoutObjectivity(2002).BytheendofAugust,2002,Ihad
writtenamanuscript“ThreeGradesofTruthRelativity,”whichwasthegerm
ofthepresentbook.(Thoughthispaperwasneverpublished,aself-standing
treatmentoffuturecontingentswaspublishedasMacFarlane2003.)
Atthistime,thephilosophicalliteraturewasfullofdiscussionsofvarious
formsofcontextualism,andIcouldseethattherelative-truthframeworkI
hadappliedin“ThreeGrades”tofuturecontingents,accommodation,and
evaluativerelativismhadapplicationsintheseareasaswell.Iworkedouttwo
ofthese—toknowledge-attributingsentencesandtoepistemicmodals—in
summer2003,andpresentedthemastalksatStanford,Utah,andYale.(These
becameMacFarlane2005aandMacFarlane2011a.)ConversationswithJeff
KingandJasonStanleyspurredmetothinkmoreabouthowonemightdo
relativistsemanticsinapropositional(ratherthanasentential)framework,
andtheresultwasmyAristotelianSocietypaper“MakingSenseofRelative
Truth”(MacFarlane2005c).
Othershadbeenworkingindependentlyalongparallellines.AndyEgan,
JohnHawthorne,andBrianWeathersoncameoutwiththeirownrelativist
treatment of epistemic modals (Egan, Hawthorne, and Weatherson 2005).
Mark Richard noticed the applications to knowledge attributions and ac-
commodation (Richard 2004). And the linguist Peter Lasersohn, working
atfirstinisolationfromtheemergingliteratureinphilosophy,wroteanin-
fluential paper arguing for a relativist treatment of predicates of personal
taste,employingamodificationofKaplan’ssemanticsforindexicalsthatwas
very similar to my own approach in “Three Grades” (Lasersohn 2005). In
September,2005,LOGOSsponsoredawell-attendedconferenceonrelativist
semanticsinBarcelona.
Whatcontinuedtodistinguishmyworkfromothers’wasthenotionofa
contextofassessment.Othershadmadethemoveofrelativizingpropositional
truthtoparametersotherthanworlds,suchasjudges,perspectives,orstan-
dards of taste. But I had argued in MacFarlane (2005c) that this alone was
notenoughtomakeonearelativistabouttruthinthemostphilosophically
interestingsense.Theinterestingdivide,Iargued,isbetweenviewsthatallow
Preface vii
truthtovarywiththecontextofassessmentandthosethatdonot.Mynext
batchofpapers(2007a,2009,2008)wasdevotedtomakingthispointinmore
detail,andtofleshingoutthedistinctionbetween“nonindexicalcontextualist”
views,whichrelativizepropositionaltruthtononstandardparametersbutdo
notpositassessmentsensitivity,andgenuinely“relativist”views.
InSpring2007IsatinonmycolleagueNikoKolodny’sseminaronreasons
and rationality, and this led to a fruitful and ongoing collaboration. Niko
helpedmebringmysemanticideasintocontactwithimportantdebatesinthe
literatureonpracticalreasoning.Ourjointpaper(KolodnyandMacFarlane
2010)appliedrelativistideastothesemanticsofdeonticmodalsandindicative
conditionals.
Thisisalargeproject,withmanyinterconnectingparts,andjournalpapers
havenotbeentheidealmediumforpresentingit.Withouttheapplications,
thefoundationalideasappearabstractandsterile;buttheapplicationscannot
beadequatelyexplainedwithoutthefoundationalideas.Moreover,becauseit
wouldnotberationaltomakesignificantchangesinone’ssemanticframe-
workjusttohandleonerecalcitrantconstruction,itisimportanttoseethat
therearemanysystematicallyrelatedapplicationsoftheproposedframework.
HenceIhavealwaysenvisionedabook-lengthtreatmentcoveringfounda-
tionsandapplicationsinaunifiedway.Thoughthepresentbookdrawson
earlierarticles,withafewexceptionsIhavewritteneverythingafresh,remov-
inginconsistencies,improvingexplanations,andrespondingtocriticismthat
hasappearedintheliterature.
Analyticphilosophersarenowconsiderablymoreopentorelativismabout
truththantheywerewhenIbeganthisproject.Myinitialaimwasmerelyto
placerelativistviewsonthetableasrealoptions.Manyofthosewhoinitially
accusedtheseviewsofincoherencehavecomearoundtoregardingthemas
merelyempiricallyfalse.Iamgratefulforthecompany,andIhopethatthe
bookisstilltimely.
J.M.
Berkeley
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ibeganthisbookwhileonleavein2003–4,thankstoaBerkeleyHumanities
ResearchFellowshipandanACLS/AndrewW.MellonFellowshipforJunior
Faculty.Anadditionalsemesterofleaveinfall2008,supplementedagainbya
BerkeleyHumanitiesResearchFellowship,allowedmetomakeconsiderable
progressonthemanuscript.
Manyoftheideashereinwerefirstworkedoutinjournalarticles.Chap-
ters3–5drawonMacFarlane(2003),MacFarlane(2005c),MacFarlane(2009),
MacFarlane (2008), and MacFarlane (2011b). Chapter 6 draws on MacFar-
lane(2007a).Chapter9drawsonMacFarlane(2003)andMacFarlane(2008).
Chapter 8 draws on MacFarlane (2005a), MacFarlane (2005b), MacFarlane
(2009), and MacFarlane (2007a). Chapters 10 and 11 draw on MacFarlane
(2011a)andKolodnyandMacFarlane(2010).SomepassagesinChapter5are
reprinted verbatim from MacFarlane (2005c), by courtesty of the Editor of
theAristotelianSociety.ThanksalsotoOxfordUniversityPressforallowing
metousesomematerialfromMacFarlane(2011b),MacFarlane(2008),and
MacFarlane(2011a)inChapters5,9,and10,respectively.
Indevelopingmyideas,Ihavebeengreatlyhelpedbystudentsintwo
graduate seminars at Berkeley (Spring 2005 and Spring 2008), especially
MichaelCaie,StanleyChen,FabrizioCariani,KennyEaswaran,MichaelRiep-
pel, and Skip Schmall. Joe Karbowski did excellent work as my research
assistantin2004,asdidMichaelRieppelin2009and2011,andIanBoonand
SophieDandeletin2012.Ibenefitedimmenselyfromintensiveseminarson
the first six chapters of the book given for the LOGOS group in Barcelona
in March 2009, the Cogito group in Bologna in June 2010, and the Institut
JeanNicodinParisinOctober2010,andIthankManuelGarcía-Carpintero,
PaoloLeonardi,andFrançoisRecanati,formakingthesepossible.InMarch
2012,Ihadtheopportunitytopresentsomematerialfromthebookinthree
lecturesatPrincetonasWhitneyJ.OatesFellowintheHumanitiesCouncil.I
amgratefultoPrinceton’sHumanitiesCouncilfortheopportunity,andtothe
philosophersthereforlivelydiscussion.Ihavealsobenefitedfromquestions
fromaudiencesattalksinBerkeley,Bristol,BuenosAires,Chicago,Connecti-
cut, Davis, Dublin, Guangzhou, Harvard, Irvine, Las Vegas, London, Los
Acknowledgements ix
Angeles,MIT,MexicoCity,Michigan,Minneapolis,NewYork,NotreDame,
Oslo,Oxford,Paris,Pittsburgh,Portland,Providence,Princeton,Riverside,
Rutgers,SanDiego,SantaBarbara,SantaCruz,SanFrancisco,StAndrews,
Stanford,Toronto,Tucson,Utah,andYale;andfromconversations(bothin
personandovere-mail)withalargenumberofphilosophersandlinguists,
includingKentBach,ChrisBarker,NuelBelnap,MatthewBenton,Andrea
Bianchi,PaulBoghossian,JohnCampbell,JoeCamp,RichardDietz,CianDorr,
AndyEgan,IrisEinheuser,DeliaGraffFara,HartryField,BrandenFitelson,
KitFine,ManuelGarcía-Carpintero,HannahGinsborg,DavidHunter,Peter
Hanks,BenjHellie,DirkKindermann,NikoKolodny,MaxKölbel,JeffKing,,
PeterLasersohn,ElijahMillgram,FriederikeMoltmann,SebastianoMoruzzi,
ThomasMüller,StephenNeale,RamNeta,EvaPicardi,StefanoPredelli,Gra-
hamPriest,FrançoisRecanati,TobiasRosenfeldt(andhisgraduateseminarat
theHumboldtUniversityofBerlin),SvenRosenkrantz,DanielLopezdeSa,
KarlSchafer,JonathanSchaffer,LionelShapiro,MarkSchroeder,BarrySmith,
Jason Stanley, Isidora Stojanovic, Zoltán Gendler Szabó, Ken Taylor, Paul
Teller,GiorgioVolpe,LeeWalters,JacekWawer,BrianWeatherson,Matthew
Weiner,DagWesterståhl,CrispinWright,SethYalcin,andAaronZimmerman.
Throughouttheprocess,myeditorPeterMomtchiloffprovidedpatienten-
couragementandadvice.Iamalsogratefultotwoanonymousrefereesfrom
OxfordUniversityPress,whoprovidedhelpfulfeedbackonapenultimate
draft.
Iowelargerintellectualdebtstomyteachers,BobBrandom,NuelBelnap,
andJoeCamp.Theyplantedtheseedsthatgrewintothepresentmanuscript,
whichtheymayregardasanexoticweed.
Thebookhastakenalongtimetowrite.Itmighthavebeendonesooner
haditnotbeenformywifeColleenBoyleandourdaughterClaire,whohave
madethe“realworld”asenchantingastheworldofideas.