SocRATES On DISAGREEMENTS AND KNOWLEDGE

1
SocRATES On DISAGREEMENTS AND KNOWLEDGE
2
Introduction

• The (epistemological) problem of peer
  disagreement
• Epistemic peer someone just as smart as you are,
  and just as well acquainted with the evidence.

3
Introduction

• A case of peer disagreement
• You believe that p,
• Someone else (a peer) believes that not-p.
• You meet and talk.
• After a thorough discussion (full disclosure,
  i.e. after both parties to the disagreement have
  presented their reasons), the disagreement
  remains.

4
Introduction

• What should you think/believe now?
• Should you be less confident that p?
• Should you not change your mind at all?
• Should you with-hold judgment that p?
• Should you think that the person you had the
  discussion is not your peer?

5
Introduction

• The significance of the problem
• Practical significance situations similar to
  the idealized peer disagreement case abound.
• Theoretical significance peer disagreement is
  linked to central philosophical issues of
  (epistemic) justification, knowledge, etc.

6
Introduction

• Outline of the presentation
• (i) Socrates on disagreeing with yourself.
• (ii) Socrates on disagreeing with others.
• (iii) Remarks on a (possible) Socratic reaction
  to peer disagreement.

7
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Socrates does not address the issue of
  peer-disagreement directly.
• But, for Socrates, there is a connection between
  (peer) disagreement and a lack of knowledge.
• This connection has ramifications for the issue
  of peer disagreement.

8
Part IDisagreeing With Yourself
9
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Socratic method (elenchos), in Platos early
  dialogues
• Socrates asks the interlocutor a question the
  answer to which is meant to exhibit the
  interlocutors wisdom concerning the definition
  of some moral concept.
• The interlocutor provides the answer, p.
• The interlocutor provides answers, q, r, and s to
  a series of other Socratic questions.
• Socrates goes on to show that these further
  answers entail the negation of the original
  answer and that the interlocutor believes both p
  and not-p.

10
Disagreeing With Yourself

• (Charmides 159B-160D, abridged)
• So I think, he said, taking it all together,
  that what you ask about i.e. what is temperance
  is a sort of quietness. Perhaps you are right,
  I said, Lets see if there is anything in it.
  Tell me, temperance is one of the admirable
  things, isnt it? Yes indeed, he said. Well
  then, I said, is facility in learning more
  admirable or difficulty in learning? Facility.
  But facility in learning is learning quickly?
  And difficulty in learning is learning quietly
  and slowly? Yes. And to teach another person
  quicklyisnt this far more admirable than to
  teach him quietly and slowly? Yes. Well then,
  to recall and to remember quietly and slowlyis
  this more admirable, or to do it vehemently and
  quickly? Vehemently, he said, and quickly.
  Therefore, Charmides, I said, in all these
  cases, we think that quickness and speed are more
  admirable than slowness and quietness? It seems
  likely, he said. We conclude then that
  temperance would not be a kind of quietness.

11
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Socrates asks the interlocutor (Charmides) what
  is temperance.
• Charmides provides the answer, p (temperance is
  a sort of quietness).
• Charmides provides answers, to a series of other
  Socratic questions (temperance is admirable,
  learning quietly is not admirable).
• Socrates goes on to show that these answers
  entail the negation of the original answer (that
  temperance is not quietness) and that Charmides
  believes both p and not-p.
• Whats the point of this procedure?

12
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Callicles will not agree with you, Callicles,
  but will be dissonant with you all your life
  long. And yet for my part, my good man, I think
  its better to have my lyre or a chorus that I
  might lead out of tune and dissonant, and have
  the vast majority of men disagree with me and
  contradict me, than to be out of harmony with
  myself, to contradict myself, though Im only one
  person. (Gorgias 482B-C, modified)

13
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Disagreeing with yourself holding contradictory
  beliefs.
• Beliefs are dispositional, one need not be aware
  that one is holding inconsistent beliefs.
• Why is disagreeing with yourself so bad?

14
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Well then, given that your opinion wavers so
  much, how likely is it that you know about
  justice and injustice? (Alciabiades 112D,
  abridged)

15
Disagreeing With Yourself

• Two contradictory beliefs about the same subject
  matter cannot both be true.
• Knowledge entails having true beliefs about the
  subject matter.
• If one holds contradictory beliefs about the
  subject matter, one holds false beliefs about the
  subject matter, and therefore does not know.
• Even ones true beliefs do not count as
  knowledge, if the neighboring beliefs are
  false.
• Disagreement within one person shows that this
  person lacks the relevant knowledge.

16
Disagreeing With Yourself

• The main aim of Socratic method showing that
  the interlocutor disagrees with himself/herself,
  and therefore lacks (moral) knowledge.
• Consequently, if the interlocutor disagrees with
  himself, he can never live a happy life (unless
  he acquires the moral knowledge).

17
Part IIDisagreeing With Others
18
Disagreeing With Others

• Socrates disavows moral knowledge.
• Socrates also thinks that moral knowledge is
  necessary for a just and happy life.
• This forces him to search for a teacher, someone
  who does have moral knowledge (a moral expert).

19
Disagreeing With Others

• Danger!!
• There is a far greater risk in buying teachings
  than in buying food. When you buy food and drink
  from the merchant you can take each item back
  home from the store in its own container and
  before you ingest it into your body you can lay
  it all out and call in an expert for consultation
  as to what should be eaten or drunk and what not,
  and how much and when. So theres not much risk
  in your purchase. But you cannot carry teachings
  away in a separate container. You put down your
  money and take the teaching away in your soul by
  having learned it, and off you go, either helped
  or injured. (Protagoras 314B)
• How to decide who should teach us?

20
Disagreeing With Others

• The problem for Socrates is that, at least when
  it comes to morality, there are no universally
  accepted moral experts.
• How should a non-expert recognize experts?

21
Disagreeing With Others

• Socrates takes the indicator-properties that
  enable to recognize expertise to be the
  following
• produce success in practicing expertise
• give an account (a definition) of the particular
  things that belong the domain of expertise,
• make reliable prognostic statements about the
  particular things that belong to the domain of
  expertise
• recognize another expert in the same domain
• teach his/her knowledge
• expert  agrees with other experts on the facts of
  her expertise

22
Disagreeing With Others

• Lack of disagreement is an indicator-property of
  the presence of expertise
• In contemporary epistemology Disagreement shows
  (or may show) that at least one of the putative
  knowers does not, in fact, know (or is not an
  expert). But which one?

23
Disagreeing With Others

• Lack of disagreement is an indicator-property of
  the presence of knowledge/expertise
• In contemporary epistemology Disagreement shows
  that at least one of the putative knowers does
  not, in fact, know (or is not an expert). But
  which one?
• Socratic position Disagreement shows that
  neither of the putative knowers does, in fact,
  know (or is an expert).

24
Disagreeing With Others

• S Yes, my noble friend, people in general are
  good teachers of that Greek language, and it
  would be only fair to praise them for their
  teaching. A Why? S Because they have what
  it takes to be good teachers of the subject. A
  What do you mean by that? Socrates Dont you
  see that somebody who is going to teach anything
  must first know it himself? Isnt that right?
  Alciabiades Of course. S And dont people
  who know something agree with each other, not
  disagree? A Yes. S If people disagree about
  something, would you say that they know it? A
  Of course not. S Then how could they be
  teachers of it? (Alcibiades 111A)

25
Disagreeing With Others

• In the context of the dialogue Alcibiades,
  Socrates is making a specific point people (in
  general) can teach only the things they know
  (e.g. language), but not the things they dont
  know (what is justice, what is virtue. etc.).
• But Socrates also makes a very general point
• (D) In case of disagreement, neither of the
  parties has knowledge
• Does (D) make sense?

26
Disagreeing With Others

• Background assumptions
• The disagreement is persistent and remains in
  place after full disclosure (i.e. after both
  parties to the disagreement have presented their
  reasons).
• The parties of the disagreement are both equally
  open-minded, gifted, etc. They are peers.

27
Disagreeing With Others

• Improved (D) In case of disagreement about p
  involving mutual full disclosure of reasons and
  arguments for and against p, and given that the
  disagreeing parties are epistemic peers, neither
  of the parties can be said to know that p.
• Does Improved (D) make sense?

28
Disagreeing With Others

• But sometimes one can know whithout having access
  to ones reasons (externalism)?!
• Sometimes one just cant share ones reasons
  (internalism)?!
• Socratic response
• If you know, you always have access to your
  reasons.
• There are no reasons that cant be shared.

29
Disagreeing With Others

• Dialectical notion of knowledge.
• Knowledge is essentially transferable.
• One must have knowledge in order to transfer
  knowledge.
• If one knows then, necassarily, one is able to
  teach (in the sense of explain why p is true, and
  also convince that p is true) what one knows.

30
Disagreeing With Others

• Whether I know that p is not only up to me, it
  also depends on whether other people understand
  me.
• In that sense, Socrates notion of knowledge is
  social (unlike, e.g. Descartess).

31
Disagreeing With Others

• Given that Socraties is committed to the
  dialectical notion of knowledge, persistent
  disagreement is possible only if one fails to
  know (i.e. fails to explain and convince).
• Improved (D) makes perfect sense (at least from
  the Socratic viewpoint).

32
Disagreeing With Others

• If one disagrees after full disclosure, this
  means that one is unable to teach (what one
  thinks one knows). If one is not able to teach
  (what think one knows), one does not, in fact,
  know.
• The indicator-property of the lack of
  disagreement is not an independent criterion for
  expertise the lack of disagreement among
  experts follows, for Socrates, from their ability
  to teach (to transmit knowledge).

33
Disagreeing With Others

• What would a Socratic reaction to
  peer-disagreement look like?
• Its not the fact that we disagree that should
  make me less confident. Rather, its the fact
  that I cant convince you (teach you) that
  should make me think that I dont know what I
  think I know.
• Socratic approach is interestingly different from
  the contemporary approaches, since in invokes the
  notion of knowledge, rather than the notion of
  degrees of conviction.

34
Conclusion

• Given the dialectical notion of knowledge, both
  types of disagreement (intra-personal and
  inter-personal) indicate lack of knowledge
  (although not of truth).

35
Conclusion

• Given the dialectical notion of knowledge, both
  types of disagreement (intra-personal and
  inter-personal) indicate lack of knowledge
  (although not of truth).
• If you disagree with someone (who is open-minded
  and willing to learn), and are unable to convince
  her, Socrates would say that it is very likely
  that you dont know what you are talking about!

36
Disagreement and Knowledge

• Thank you for your attention!