TRUTH AS TROPHY: GORGIAS’ SOPHISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM, AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM Spencer A....

26
TRUTH AS TROPHY: GORGIAS’ SOPHISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM, AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM Spencer A. McWilliams California State University San Marcos Constructivist Psychology Network Conference June 20, 2008 University of Victoria

Transcript of TRUTH AS TROPHY: GORGIAS’ SOPHISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM, AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM Spencer A....

TRUTH AS TROPHY:GORGIAS’ SOPHISM, CONSTRUCTIVISM, AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

Spencer A. McWilliams

California State University San Marcos

Constructivist Psychology Network Conference

June 20, 2008

University of Victoria

Modernism & Post Modernism

Constructivism & constructionism as post-modern critique of modernist, realist view

Early Greek Sophism of Gorgias as a pre pre-modern, but decidedly post-modernist view

Parallels with constructionist and constructivist psychology

Contribution, expand ideas and practices Relation to Constructivism, Social

Constructionism & Personal Construct Psychology

Foundationalism (AKA Modernism, Realism)

Truth, reality as “independent ground” prior to human inquiry and knowledge

Knowledge apprehends the truth that exists in the world

There are methods for this apprehension There are modes of discourse for

conveying this truth

Constructivism (AKA post-modernism)

No objective criteria for justifying truth Ideas, beliefs, etc., constructed by humans

in context of a community, language, etc. Beliefs represent conventions leading to

predictability, order, coordination, survival Alternative explanations always available Environment, biology, society constrain Recognition of our “participation”

enhances our effectiveness

Sophism

5th Century BCE Greece: logic, rhetoric Persuading others of one’s point of view Debates, competing views of truth No way to validate, came to see all as =

true Rhetorical skill of persuasion determines

which ideas become regarded as valid or true

Plato (a foundationalist) characterized Sophists as “tricksters” in his (straw man) dialogues

Protagoras

Originator of Sophism “Man (sic) is the measure of all things, of the things that are that they are, and of the things that are not as they are

not”That which appears to each individual is

the only reality The real world differs for each person Things exist due to human construal

Gorgias

Junior colleague of ProtagorasFamous three part argument Nothing exists If it did exist we could not comprehend it If we did comprehend it we could not

communicate it to othersFoundationalists view this argument as

nihilistic and solipsisticMuch new scholarship takes a post-modern

view

Viewing Gorgias as Antifoundationalist

Challenges project of grounding knowledge in criteria independent of human experience

Foundationalism: incoherentMeaning of “exist”: more like “to be so” Words do not define essential nature of

reality “Things” aren’t what we say they are Similar to Buddhism, Taoism, Social

constructionism

Criterion for Knowledge?

Can’t rely on reason or sensesHow could we know if Human explanation equals or matches “World as it is”Would need a separate, independent view

to compare these two and tell us if they are the same

The World’s View

Our Human View

Independent View

Communication

Could we describe knowledge?Words and sense phenomena different Cannot “speak” a “color” Person has to already have experienceMay not form the same idea we have Cannot transfer mental images

Knowing and Communicating Truth?

Does Gorgias say that nothing exists, we cannot know truth, and we cannot communicate truth?

NO, Gorgias says: Truths are common We know what exists and does not exist We routinely communicate truthDENIES Truth as a property of “the world itself” Truth as a foundation for what we say

How do we determine truth?In the verbal practice of a community Language as a contest (agon) or game Speakers with rival ideas, beliefs,

practices Competing to “win” community approval Follow agreed-upon conventionsWords have meaning by how we use them Similar to Wittgenstein’s “language

games”

Truth as Trophy

Knowledge & truth emerge from debate Persuade audience of viability or utilityCommunity judges quality, determines victor Share community conventions, rules,

assumptions (discourse, evidence, etc.) If new views support conventions,

accredited as valid“Truth” seen as an award to most

persuasive case

Conceptualizing “Truth”

Not “discovery” of accurate representation of a pre-existing independent world, but

Endorsement of a persuasive argument“Truth” or “Certainty”: a highly convincing

case that we cannot counter persuasively

Absence of disagreement occurs when we don’t question a very convincing account

Problem: we forget we constructed “truth” and project the responsibility onto nature!

Gorgias & Post-modernism

Gorgias’ view similar to Rorty’s distinction between the claims that the

world is out there the truth is out there

“Truth” applicable to descriptions, not the world.

“Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.

The world is on its own—unaided by the describing activities of human beings” (1995p. 109).

Gorgias & Radical Constructivism

Gorgias’ perspective similar to von Glaserfeld’s Radical Constructivism

concepts and ideas generated by our own activities

responsible for the world as we experience it

can consider an infinite number of alternatives

“fit” of ideas determines utility not truth of the world itself

Gorgias & Social Constructionism

Reality from social interactions, definitionsGergen (1999): “game of truth” Cultural ritual: description, explanation,

theories establish “truth telling” in a groupRhetorical, persuasive objectives, style Distancing devices: “world out there” Authority of investigator as superior view Denial of passion, emotions, motives

Science & Social Constructionism

Social processes determine Scientific FactsSocializing participants into a paradigm

(Kuhn) Collective beliefs & conventions of

community Gives coherence to enterprise and

meaning to specific elements—concepts, methods, etc.

Premises so accepted that the paradigm is not subject to productive debate

Scientific methods of persuasionGergen, 1999

Propose candidates for “truth”Conscript support, reduce detractors Enroll supporting allies Cite existing supportive texts Approved rhetorical devices: statistics, graphs

and figures, apparatus, journals, organizationsScientific fact: “enormous interlocking arrangement

of assumptions, equipments, writings, and so on—in effect, an entire tradition or form of life.” (p. 57)

Gorgias and Personal Construct Psychology

Kelly’s Personal Scientist metaphor Personal as well as Social processes Constructive Alternativism Anticipation, seeking predictabilityFor the individual, we might view “Truth”

as a prize we award when choosing particular constructions

Choice Corollary CPC Cycle

Sophist elements in PCP

Make the world more predictable, meaningful

Within current understanding, assumptions

Avoid “threat”Seek the most persuasive constructions in

“debate” Compelling construction seen as “truth” Tendency to forget we constructed it Treat “truth” as characteristic of the

event Example: students in construct elicitation activity

Choice Corollary

“A person chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomous construct through which he anticipates the greater possibility for extension and definition of his system” (Kelly, 1955 p. 64)

The Elaborative Choice “Whenever a person is confronted with the

opportunity for making a choice… make that choice in favor of the

alternative which seems to provide the best basis for

anticipating ensuing events” (Kelly, 1955, p. 64)

Elaboration through Choice

Like social constructions (& science), honoring ideas that provide best basis for future action

Choice among competing candidates (e.g., “To be or not to be,” Marriage, Career,

Abortion) Our notion of “truth” as the choice that

enables most effective future anticipation

Tendency to believe it is the “right” choice

“Rightness” or “wrongness” as a quality of the event

C-P-C Cycle

“a sequence of construction involving, in succession, circumspection, preemption, and control, and leading to a choice which precipitates the person into a particular situation.” (Kelly, 1955, p. 515)

Preemption as “truth” for the particular situation The most “persuasive” construction within the

context of assumptions and the existing system Provides control and basis for actionMay come to see as “right” conceptualization Tendency to see qualities as inherent in event

Implications

These perspectives help combat tendency to treat compelling, persuasive constructions as characteristics of events or objects

Regard “truth” and “reality” as human constructions

Not represent “a way that the world itself is.” Take responsibility for world we experience Understand contexts, diversity of views Use as basis for action to advance human

interests, goals, and well-being Remain open to alternatives