Whither Pragmatism in Knowledge Organization? Classical pragmatism vs. Neopragmatism as KO Metatheories

1
Whither Pragmatism in Knowledge
Organization?Classical pragmatism vs.
Neopragmatism as KO Metatheories

• Thomas M. Dousa
• GSLIS, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• ISKO 2010
• Rome, Italy

2
Pragmatism as a philosophical position Some
basic Tenets

• Core Epistemological premise
• The meaning of a concept or the truth of a
  pro-
• position is to be evaluated by considering
  the experiential or practical consequences of
  its application (Haack 2003, 774).
• Other basic features (cf. Jacob 2000)
• Fallibilism
• Contingency
• Social Embeddedness
• Pluralism

3
Classical Pragmatism and Neopragmatism

• Classical Pragmatism (hereafter, CP)
• -- Primary Exponents
• Charles Sanders Peirce (18391914)
• William James (18421910)
• John Dewey (18591952)
• Neopragmatism (hereafter, NP)
• -- Primary Exponent
• Richard Rorty (19332007)

4
CP and NP as KO metatheoriesKey questions

• How does NP differ from CP?
• Are the difference sufficient to make a
• metatheoretical difference for KO?
• If so, is NP an advance over CP as a philo-
• sophical resource for KO?

5
CP and NP Differences

• According to Rorty (1999, 35 95), there are two
  
• primary differences between CP and NP
• (1) CPs epistemic point of departure
  Experience
• NPs epistemic point of departure
  Language
• (2) CP scientific method is a privileged form of
  inquiry.
• NP There is no privileged form of
  inquiry.

6
CP vs. NP Epistemic point of Departure for
inquiry (I)

• CP
• -- Inquiry based on experience
• Purposeful interaction with the world
• involving pushes and pulls as human
• beings encounter, perceive, analyze,
• manipulate, and test objects and
  ideas
• to solve the problem to which inquiry
  is
• addressed.
• Experience and inference therefrom
  pro-
• vide epistemological warrant.

7
CP vs. NP Epistemic point of Departure for
inquiry (II)

• NP
• Inquiry based on language
• No prelinguistic referent by means of
• which one can justify ones conceptual-
• ization and belief.
• Epistemological warrant reposes en-
• tirely on intersubjective agreement.

8
CP vs. NP Method of Inquiry (I)

• CP
• Privileged method is method of science
• or experimental method.
• This method involves
• hypothesis formation, manipulation of
• objects, observation of responses,
• deduction from observation, and
• submission of results to ones peers.
• Experimental method applicable, mutatis
• mutandis, to all inquiries.

9
CP vs. NP Method of Inquiry (II)

• NP
• views inquiry not as a form of
  experimental
• method but as a form of conversation.
  
• Emphasizes ethical norms of
  conversation-
• al reasonableness over epistemic
  norms.
• holds that we should discard the
  metaphor
• of inquiry, and human society
  generally, as
• converging, rather than proliferating,
  be-
• coming more unified rather than more
  diverse
• (Rorty 1987, 45).

10
Metatheoretical Consequencesof CP and NP (I)

• Do the metatheoretical differences between CP
• and NP make a practical difference for KO
• (meta)theory?
• With respect to KO design,
• 
  NO
  
• With respect to KO research methodology
• 
  NO
  
• 
  

11
Metatheoretical Consequencesof CP and NP (II)

• There are cases where the differences between
  CP
• and NP do have metatheoretical consequences
  
• e.g., CP, but not NP, accommodates Hjørlands
  (1997) views
• that
• scientific classifications should
  be based on the
• pure inquiry, which
  constitutes the pursuit of truth
• for its own sake (p. 83).
• pragmatic realism (pp. 8182) is
  based on contribu-
• tions from both the inquirer and
  the external world.
• but may not have any practical import for
  the
• resultant theory of KO design.

12
Metatheoretical Consequencesof CP and NP (III)

• The theoretical differences between CP and NP
• may have consequences for KOs self-concept-
• ualization as a field.
• CPs call for a general method of inquiry
  is likely
• to lead to an integrative vision of KO.
• NPs repudiation of any general method of
  inquiry
• is likely to lead to a fragmented vision
  of KO.
• In this respect, CP may prove a more useful
  metatheoretical option than NP.

13
References

• Haack, S. (2003). Pragmatism, in N. Bunnin E.
  P. Tsui-James (eds.),
• The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy (2nd.
  Ed. pp. 774789).
• Malden, MA Blackwell.
• Hjørland, B. (1997). Information seeking and
  subject represent
• ation an activity-theoretical approach to
  information science.
• Westport Greenwood Press, CT.
• Jacob, E. (2000). The legacy of pragmatism
  implications for
• knowledge organization in a pluralistic
  universe. In C. Beghtol,
• L.C. Howarth, N.J. Williamson (eds.),
  Dynamism and stability in
• knowledge organization Proceedings of the
  Sixth International
• ISKO Conference, Toronto, Canada,1013 July
  2000 (pp. 1622).
• Würzburg Ergon.
• Rorty, R. (1987). Science as solidarity. In
  J.S. Nelson, A. Megill,
• D.N. McCloskey (eds.), The rhetoric of the
  human sciences
• language and argument in scholarship and
  public affairs (pp.
• 3852). Madison,WI University of Wisconsin
  Press.

14
References

• Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope.
  London/New
• York Penguin Books.