The Incredibility of Rejecting Belief Desire - Action Explanations

The Incredibility of Rejecting Belief-Desire-Action Explanations Alfred F. MacKay PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1982, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. (1982), pp. 117-126. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0270-8647%281982%291982%3C117%3ATIORBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Mon Jun 4 08:32:50 2007

The I n c r e d i b i l i t y

of R e j e c t i n g

Belief-Desire-Action

Explanations

A l f r e d F. MacKay

Oberlin College

An argument o f Donald D a v i d s o n f s (1970, 1973) h a s convinced many p e o p l e t h a t t h e r e is something s u s p e c t a b o u t t h e commonsense, b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t most o f u s a p p l y t o human behavior. Alexander Rosenberg (1980, 1983) h a s been convinced by D a v i d s o n t s argument, and u s e s i t s c o n c l u s i o n ( t o g e t h e r w i t h some i d e a s a b o u t s o c i o b i o l o g y ) t o e x p l a i n what he r e g a r d s a s t h e p e r s i s t e n t f a i l u r e s o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . I n t h i s paper I s h a l l n o t comment d i r e c t l y upon D a v i d s o n ' s argument. Instead, I w i l l discuss an u n a c c e p t a b l e i m p l i c a t i o n o f R o s e n b e r g t s u s e o f i t . Whether t h i s r e f l e c t s on D a v i d s o n ' s argument I l e a v e f o r o t h e r s t o d e c i d e . T h i s is how Rosenberg u s e s t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f D a v i d s o n t s argument t o e x p l a i n t h e ( a l l e g e d ) f a i l u r e s o f economics. P h i l o s o p h e r s have shown t h a t t h e t e r m s i n which o r d i n a r y t h o u g h t and t h e b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s d e s c r i b e t h e c a u s e and e f f e c t s o f human a c t i o n do n o t d e s c r i b e " n a t u r a l k i n d s , " Applying t h e t h e y do n o t d i v i d e n a t u r e a t t h e j o i n t s . new orthodoxy i n t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f psychology it becomes c l e a r t h a t economicsf p r e d i c t i v e weakness h i n g e s on t h e i n t e n t i o n a l typology o f t h e phenomena i t e x p l a i n s and t h e Its f a i l u r e t o uncover laws o f human c a u s e it i d e n t i f i e s . b e h a v i o r is due t o i t s wrongly assuming t h a t t h e s e laws w i l l t r a d e i n d e s i r e s , b e l i e f s o r t h e i r cognates. Thus t o a false t h e f a i l u r e o f economics is t r a c e d assumption e c o n o m i s t s s h a r e w i t h a l l o t h e r s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , indeed w i t h e v e r y one who h a s e v e r e x p l a i n e d t h e i r own o r o t h e r s f b e h a v i o r by a p p e a l t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f d e s i r e s and b e l i e f s . (1983,pp. 301-303)

...

...

...

To t h e r e j o i n d e r t h a t , even i f e v e r y t h i n g he s a y s is t r u e , economics is no worse t h a n Mendelian g e n e t i c s , Rosenberg r e p l i e s ,

PSA 1982, Volume 2 , pp. 117-126 Copyright @ 1983 by t h e Philosophy o f S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n

A b e t t e r comparison f o r economic t h e o r y t h a n Mendelian g e n e t i c s is p h l o g i s t o n t h e o r y , whose f a i l u r e is t r a c e a b l e t o i t s i n c o m m e n s u r a b i l i t y w i t h t h e oxygen t h e o r y t h a t superseded it. P h l o g i s t o n t h e o r y is a s c i e n t i f i c dead end, because t h e r e is no such t h i n g a s p h l o g i s t o n , because t h e n o t i o n o f p h l o g i s t o n does n o t d i v i d e n a t u r e a t any joint. P h l o g i s t o n is n o t a n a t u r a l k i n d . T h i s i s an e m p i r i c a l f a c t a b o u t n a t u r e , and t h e c l a i m t h a t i n t e n t i o n a l n o t i o n s a r e n o t n a t u r a l k i n d s is e q u a l l y a c o n t i n g e n t c l a i m . Thus, ezonomics and p h l o g i s t o n t h e o r y a r e n o t m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y d e f e c t i v e . They a r e simply ( 1983, p . 305) false. I n (1980) Rosenberg p r o v i d e s s e v e r a l arguments i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s d i a g n o s i s , and I want t o f o c u s on t h e one t h a t g o e s l i k e t h i s . F i r s t t h e r e a r e some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p r e s e n t e d t h a t a r e d e s i g n e d t o show t h a t t h e c o n c e p t s o f b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n d o n ' t d e s i g n a t e n a t u r a l k i n d s , d o n ' t c u t n a t u r e up a t t h e j o i n t s , e t c . , and t h a t i n consequence t h e r e a r e no c a u s a l laws t h a t employ such c o n c e p t s . But now t h e f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i o n i s broached. We a l l make many s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m s , and many o f t h e s e a r e t r u e . So t h e r e must be g e n e r a l c a u s a l b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n laws. Otherwise a l l t h o s e s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l s t a t e m e n t s c o u l d n ' t be t r u e . H i s r e s p o n s e a p p e a l s t o K e i t h D o n n e l l a n ' s (1966, 1968) d i s t i n c t i o n between r e f e r e n t i a l and a t t r i b u t i v e u s e s of language. The c o n c e p t s o f b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n can be used w i t h communicative s u c c e s s r e f e r e n t i a l l y , i n D o n n e l l a n ' s s e n s e , and t h e s i n g u l a r c a u s a l c l a i m s e x p r e s s e d u s i n g them can be t r u e , even though we a r e i g n o r a n t o f t h e r e a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s t h a t we (somehow s u c c e s s f u l l y ) r e f e r t o , and i g n o r a n t o f t h e r e a l c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n s t h a t hold between them and make o u r s t a t e m e n t s t r u e . An example Rosenberg g i v e s i s t h i s . We may t r u l y s a y o f a beached whale t h a t t h e l a r g e f i s h

d i e d because it was o u t o f t h e water f o r t o o long. Here

o u r c a u s a l c l a i m may be t r u e even though both t h e

d e s c r i p t i o n s employed t o make o u r c a u s a l c l a i m and t h e

grounds of t h e c l a i m a r e mistaken: m i s t a k e n because t h e

a n i m a l i n q u e s t i o n was n o t a f i s h , b u t a mammal, and

b e c a u s e , though t h e l a c k o f w a t e r d i d l e a d t o i t s d e a t h ,

it was n o t , a s we suppose, through t h e p r o c e s s o f

a s p h y x i a t i o n b u t f o r some o t h e r r e a s o n r e l a t i n g t o

thermoregulation. (1980, p.112)

Rosenberg's view can be put t h i s way. Every t i m e anybody t r u l y c l a i m s t h a t somebody acted a s he d i d because he wanted s o and s o and t h o u g h t such and s u c h , t h i s somehow i n s t a n t i a t e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y two n o t a b l e examples from r e c e n t work i n a n a l y t i c p h i l o s o p h y , namely, Donnellan's (1966) r e f e r e n t i a l u s e o f l a n g u a g e , and G e t t i e r ' s (1963) a c c i d e n t a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n d i s p l a c e m e n t . R e f e r r i n g t o t h e beached whale a s " t h e l a r g e f i s h " i s supposed t o i n s t a n t i a t e D o n n e l l a n ' s phenomenon. Being ( a c c i d e n t a l l y ) c o r r e c t t h a t t h e c r e a t u r e ' s d e a t h was caused by i t s b e i n g o u t o f water t o o l o n g i s an i n s t a n c e o f G e t t i e r ' s phenomenon.

Rosenberg compares t h e c o n c e p t s o f b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n t o p h l o g i s t o n and t o E u c l i d e a n o b j e c t s . B e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n a r e s a i d t o be l i k e p h l o g i s t o n i n t h a t n a t u r e d o e s n ' t r e a l l y c o n t a i n any i t i s a s c i e n t i f i c dead end. E u c l i d e a n geometry i s c a l l e d i n t o show t h a t c o n c e p t s t h a t d o n ' t d e s i g n a t e n a t u r a l k i n d s can s t i l l have ( w i t h i n l i m i t s ) p r a c t i c a l employment. ( I n Hume's n i c e p h r a s e , Ifyet a r e t h e y s u f f i c i e n t f o r d i s c o u r s e , and s e r v e a l l o u r p u r p o s e s i n company, i n t h e p u l p i t , on t h e t h e a t r e , and i n t h e s c h o o l s . ~ ( T r e a t i s e , 111, 111, 3 ) ) Of c o u r s e , Rosenberg t h i n k s b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n a r e more l i k e p h l o g i s t o n t h a n t h e y a r e l i k e E u c l i d e a n n o t i o n s . And I t h i n k t h a t , g i v e n t h e r e s t o f h i s views, t h e y a r e a c t u a l l y worse t h a n p h l o g i s t o n . On t h e spectrum t h a t r u n s from p h l o g i s t o n t o E u c l i d , b e l i e f , d e s i r e and a c t i o n f a l l on t h e o t h e r s i d e o f p h l o g i s t o n , n o t a s he sometimes s u g g e s t s , between t h e two b u t n e a r e r p h l o g i s t o n t h a n E u c l i d . I s a y t h i s because he t h i n k s t h e r e a r e no c a u s a l laws o f any s o r t , u s i n g any c o n c e p t s w h a t e v e r , t h a t e x p l a i n human b e h a v i o r a t t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n . A s he sometimes p u t s i t , t h e r e i s n o t h i n g between n e u r o p h y s i o l o g y and p o p u l a t i o n b i o l o g y . I d o n ' t know v e r y much a b o u t p h l o g i s t o n , b u t I assume t h a t i t occupied more o r l e s s t h e same e x p l a n a t o r y l e v e l a s i t s s u p p l a n t e r , oxygen. They b o t h , I g a t h e r , a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n combustion. B e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n , I t a k e i t , s t a n d t o whatever a r e t h e r e a l c a u s a l f a c t o r s behind human b e h a v i o r , n o t o n l y worse t h a n E u c l i d e a n n o t i o n s s t a n d t o t h e c o n c e p t s o f r e l a t i v i t y p h y s i c s , b u t worse t h a n p h l o g i s t o n s t a n d s t o oxygen. Not o n l y i s t h e r e s t r i c t l y no such t h i n g , t h e r e i s n ' t even a n y t h i n g on t h e same, o r even r o u g h l y s i m i l a r , e x p l a n a t o r y l e v e l . So b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n a r e not only not s t r i c t l y applicable t o anything i n nature ( l i k e Euclidean concepts), nor non-existent, but i n t h e r i g h t explanatory ballpark ( l i k e p h l o g i s t o n ) , t h e y d o n ' t even come c l o s e . They have no c o m p e t i t o r s o r ( p o t e n t i a l ) s u p p l a n t e r s t h a t might d e a l w i t h t h e same phenomena.

--

T h i s f a c t , assuming i t is a f a c t , seems t o me t o r a i s e s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r R o s e n b e r g f s d i a g n o s i s . Given t h a t b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and action are f a r o f f b a s e , i t ' s hard t o s e e how we come t o make s o many t r u e , s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m s u s i n g them, and w i t h such c o n f i d e n c e , and how we have even rough c o m p a r a b i l i t y measures, i n t h e s e n s e t h a t we can sometimes s a y t h a t one s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m i s more p l a u s i b l e t h a n a n o t h e r . I t h i n k we can do a l l t h e s e t h i n g s , and I t h i n k Rosenberg a g r e e s , b u t I f i n d i t e x t r e m e l y p u z z l i n g t h a t we can i f t h e nomological s i t u a t i o n i s t h e way he s a y s it i s . For one t h i n g , it i s n o t c l e a r how t h e Donnellan d i s t i n c t i o n is supposed t o a p p l y , e x a c t l y . I n my view, D o n n e l l a n ' s d i s t i n c t i o n between r e f e r e n t i a l and a t t r i b u t i v e u s e s o f d e f i n i t e d e s c r i p t i o n s , G r i c e f s (1975) n o t i o n o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t u r e s , and v a r i o u s o t h e r m a t t e r s i n speech a c t s t h e o r y and p r a g m a t i c s g e n e r a l l y , a r e complicated m a t t e r s w i t h t h e i r own i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t o u r s and d e f i n i t e f i n e - g r a i n e d s t r u c t u r e s . They a r e themselves, probably, a t base, s p e c i a l i z e d a p p l i c a t i o n s of r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r e x p l a n a t i o n s . It does n o t do t o f i n d any o l d s l i p between a t t e m p t e d r e f e r e n t i a l cup and s u c c e s s f u l u p t a k e l i p , and c a l l it a r e f e r e n t i a l u s e o f language. B e f o r e a c c e p t i n g t h a t , we need t o s e e , i n d e t a i l ( o r e v e n , s k e t c h i l y ) , a mechanism how i t works. Given how f a r o f f b a s e b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n a r e , presumably none o f o u r a l l e g e d

so

--

r e f e r e n t i a l u s e s o f them a r e "near-misses" (MacKay 1968) which a c h i e v e t h e i r r e f e r e n t i a l s u c c e s s by e x p l o i t i n g s a l i e n t resemblances between t h e a c t u a l i t e m s u c c e s s f u l l y r e f e r r e d t o and t h e ( s t r i c t l y i n a p p l i c a b l e ) t e r m employed. A s Rosenberg i s a t p a i n s t o p o i n t o u t , on h i s view t h e r e a r e no c l o s e resemblances between what b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n c o n c e p t s p u r p o r t t o name, and t h e a c t u a l unknown c a u s a l e l e m e n t s t h e y somehow, m i r a c u l o u s l y (?I, manage t o r e f e r t o . Of c o u r s e , he may mean t h a t b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n r e f e r t o whatever it i s t h a t c a u s e s human b e h a v i o r . But t h e n , o f c o u r s e , he h a s l a t c h e d on t o t h e wrong end of the referential/attributive distinction. If someone were t o c l a i m o r imply t h a t Rosenberg's d i a g n o s i s f a i l s because t h e f a c t t h a t b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n do n o t d e s i g n a t e n a t u r a l k i n d s is s t r i c t l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t many s i n g u l a r , causal, belief-desire-action claims a r e t r u e , then perhaps h i s defense i s a d e q u a t e t o h a n d l e t h a t o b j e c t i o n . Maybe t h e beached whale c a s e shows t h a t n o t t o be s t r i c t l y i n c o n s i s t e n t . That i s , maybe t h e beached whale example shows t h a t it is l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r a p e r s o n t o make a c a u s a l , s i n g u l a r c l a i m and m i s - d e s c r i b e i t s s u b j e c t and be m i s t a k e n a b o u t t h e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n , and s t i l l t h e s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m he makes t u r n o u t t o be t r u e . And i f t h a t i s p o s s i b l e , t h e n presumably i t i s l i k e w i s e p o s s i b l e f o r someone t o make a s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m t h a t t u r n s o u t t o be t r u e , even though t h e c a u s e s r e f e r r e d t o a r e m i s d e s c r i b e d and t h e a c t u a l c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n u n s u s p e c t e d . Let u s immediately concede t h a t b a r e , l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y and f o r s w e a r t h e o b j e c t i o n o f s t r i c t i n c o n s i s t e n c y , o r c o n c e p t u a l incoherence. (Waiving, f o r t h e moment, o u r i n a b i l i t y t o s e e e x a c t l y how successful reference is accomplished.)

S t i l l , i f I u n d e r s t a n d Rosenberg c o r r e c t l y , h i s o v e r a l l p r o j e c t is n o t p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y and c o n c e p t u a l c o h e r e n c e . I n s t e a d , i t i s l a r g e l y a weighing o f s i g n i f i c a n t l i k e l i h o o d s and broad p l a u s i b i l i t i e s . P e r h a p s t h e major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a u t h o r o f Microeconomic Laws (Rosenberg 1976) and t h e a u t h o r o f S o c i o b i o l o g y and t h e Preemption o f S o c i a l S c i e n c e (Rosenberg 1980) i s t h a t t h e e a r l i e r a u t h o r was concerned t o show t h a t it was n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t , o r c o n c e p t u a l l y i n c o h e r e n t , t o t h i n k t h a t microeconomic g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t s were ( o r , e x p r e s s e d ) e m p i r i c a l , c a u s a l laws a b o u t i n d i v i d u a l human a c t i o n , whereas t h e l a t e r a u t h o r , w h i l e conceding t h i s b a r e p o s s i b i l i t y , a r g u e s t h a t t h i s is n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t l i k e l i h o o d . The a l l e g e d f a i l u r e s o f economics, p l u s t h e a l l e g e d hollow r i n g o f a l l a p o l o g e t i c s on t h i s p o i n t , t h e s e t i p t h e s c a l e o f p l a u s i b i l i t y f o r t h e l a t e r Rosenberg. P e r h a p s we can sum m a t t e r s up t h i s way. A l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , t h e l a t e r Rosenberg f i n d s i t n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t , o r c o n c e p t u a l l y i n c o h e r e n t , b u t simply i n c r e d i b l e t h a t microeconomics is a g e n u i n e e m p i r i c a l s c i e n c e . The p e r s i s t e n t f a i l u r e s o f t h e s u b j e c t , t h e c o n t i n u e d unconcern o f its p r a c t i t i o n e r s , i t is i n c r e d i b l e t h a t a s c i e n c e should behave l i k e t h a t . No doubt i t is l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e , b u t t h e r e must be a b e t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n . Now I f i n d t h a t I r e a c t t o Rosenberg's d i a g n o s i s a t t h i s c r u c i a l j u n c t u r e e x a c t l y t h e way I have j u s t d e s c r i b e d : it is n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t ,

o r l o g i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e , it i s simply i n c r e d i b l e . On t h e one hand we have h i s c l a i m t h a t t h e r e a r e no g e n e r a l c a u s a l laws o f any s o r t g o v e r n i n g human b e h a v i o r a t t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l a c t s : t h e r e i s n o t h i n g between neurophysiology and p o p u l a t i o n b i o l o g y . Also t h e r e i s h i s d i a g n o s t i c e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n c o n c e p t s a r e more l i k e p h l o g i s t o n t h a n E u c l i d e a n t r i a n g l e s , do n o t d e s i g n a t e n a t u r a l k i n d s , and do n o t c u t n a t u r e up a t any j o i n t . And on t h e o t h e r hand t h e r e is t h e f a c t t h a t we a l l make many s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m s employing t h e c o n c e p t s o f b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n , many o f which a r e t r u e . L i k e him, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e j o i n t o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e s e s t a t e s o f a f f a i r s i s l o g i c a l l y i m p o s s i b l e , o r c o n c e p t u a l l y i n c o h e r e n t . But I f i n d it simply i n c r e d i b l e ; I d o n ' t s e e any s i g n i f i c a n t l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h a t c o u l d o c c u r . A s f a r a s I can s e e , it would r e q u i r e an e l a b o r a t e p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d harmony, e x t e n s i v e p a r t i c u l a r d i v i n e i n t e r v e n t i o n s on an ad hoc b a s i s , a l a r g e number o f s m a l l s c a l e m i r a c l e s , o r something s i m i l a r , f o r t h a t t o happen. J u s t imagine! L i t e r a l l y b i l l i o n s o f s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m s , made s i n c e s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e f o r e P l a t o ' s day, and e v e r s i n c e , by p e o p l e o f a l l r a c e s and c l i m e s , a l l employing c o n c e p t s t h a t n o t o n l y d o n ' t f i t b u t d o n ' t even come c l o s e , a l l o p e r a t i n g a t an e x p l a n a t o r y l e v e l ( i n d i v i d u a l human a c t s ) where t h e r e a r e no ( u n d i s c o v e r e d ) competing a c c o u n t s , no c a u s a l laws o f any s o r t , and v e r y many o f t h e s e s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m s t u r n i n g o u t t o be t r u e . Not p e r h a p s i m p o s s i b l e , b u t s u r e l y i n c r e d i b l e . How d i d we manage t o l u c k i n t o a l l t h e s e t r u e c l a i m s , e a c h o f them m i s r e f e r r i n g i n m y s t e r i o u s ways t o unknown c a u s a l f a c t o r s o p e r a t i n g i n ways o f which we a r e c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r a n t ? It h a r d l y d o e s j u s t i c e t o such w i d e s p r e a d , f a n t a s t i c , c o i n c i d e n c e s t o s p e a k o f a c c i d e n t and a c c i d e n t a l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . Some a c c i d e n t ! No doubt l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e , b u t s u r e l y i n c r e d i b l e . I n f a c t , i f such l a r g e s c a l e i n c r e d i b i l i t i e s can be compared, I am i n c l i n e d t o s a y t h i s . Our c o n f i d e n t a b i l i t y t o make s o many t r u e , s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m s employing t h e c o n c e p t s o f b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n , i n t h e f a c e o f t h e r e a l i t i e s o f t h e nomological s i t u a t i o n a s Rosenberg d e s c r i b e s i t , i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y more i n c r e d i b l e than a l l t h e puzzling ( a l l e g e d ) f a c t s about the l a c k of progress i n t h e s o c i a l sciences t h a t o r i g i n a l l y motivated h i s diagnosis. A s f a r a s p u z z l i n g n e s s g o e s , t h e c u r e is worse t h a n t h e d i s e a s e . L e t u s r e t u r n t o t h e beached whale. I f we approach t h i s example, n o t from t h e p o i n t o f view o f t h e ( r e d h e r r i n g ? ) c h a l l e n g e o f inconsistency, but with t h e question of p l a u s i b i l i t y , o r s i g n i f i c a n t l i k e l i h o o d , i n mind, i t i s n o t c l e a r t h a t it does t h e job i n t e n d e d . Because, f o r t h e beached whale, n o t o n l y is it n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t t h a t t h e r e be someone whose s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m , though embodying m i s t a k e n r e f e r e n c e and m i s t a k e n views a b o u t t h e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n , s t i l l t u r n s o u t t o be t r u e , b u t we can s e e t h a t t h e r e is a c e r t a i n l i k e l i h o o d , a c e r t a i n p l a u s i b i l i t y , t o t h a t a c t u a l l y happening. A whale a f t e r a l l , d o e s resemble your t y p i c a l f i s h , i n g e s t a l t i s h s i l h o u e t t e , and it d o e s l i v e i n t h e water. ( I f i t d i d n ' t , i f i n s t e a d t h e p e r s o n had s a i d , e . g . , "The l a r g e , f i v e - p e r s o n t e n t d i e d because i t was o u t o f w a t e r t o o l o n g , " we would be r e l u c t a n t t o admit t h a t he had r e f e r r e d ( e v e n

n r e f e r e n t i a l l y n ) t o t h e whale. A t l e a s t we would r e q u i r e a s p e c i a l s t o r y t o e x p l a i n how he c o u l d t h u s r e f e r . It seems t o me t h a t g i v e n Rosenberg's views a b o u t b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n , t h e y resemble t h e (unknown) a c t u a l c a u s e s o f human b e h a v i o r a b o u t a s c l o s e l y a s " t h e l a r g e , f i v e - p e r s o n t e n t w d o e s t h e beached whale. And we h a v e n ' t been provided t h e s p e c i a l s t o r y e x p l a i n i n g how r e f e r e n c e a c t u a l l y t a k e s p l a c e . ) Furthermore, n o t o n l y do f i s h t y p i c a l l y d i e o u t o f w a t e r , b u t many c r e a t u r e s d i e when o u t of t h e i r " n a t u r a l " element. T h a t ' s why I c a l l t h i s a G e t t i e r example. There is justification for the belief t h a t is e x p r e s s e d i n s a y i n g t h a t t h e l a r g e f i s h d i e d because i t was o u t o f water t o o l o n g . The problem is, l i k e t h e c l a s s i c G e t t i e r example, t h e r e a s o n why t h e b e l i e f is j u s t i f i e d ( o r , anyhow, a s j u s t i f i e d a s i t i s ) i s d i f f e r e n t from and e p i s t e m i c a l l y d i s c o n n e c t e d from t h e r e a s o n why it is t r u e . Asphyxiation i s t h e ground, whereas t h e r m o r e g u l a t i o n is what a c t u a l l y makes i t t r u e . But t h e p o i n t is, t h e r e i s some b a s i s i n t h e s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e b e l i e f a b o u t a s p h y x i a t i o n ; maybe n o t a d e q u a t e g r o u n d s , b u t some j u s t i f i c a t i o n . It i s n o t j u s t t o t a l l y i n e x p l i c a b l e why anyone would t h i n k t h a t . And s o we a c c e p t t h e example. But on Rosenberg's view o f t h e s e m a t t e r s , i t is h a r d t o s e e t h a t a t y p i c a l s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m i s l i k e t h a t . Given h i s t h e r e a r e no c a u s a l a c c o u n t o f t h e nomological s i t u a t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n s a t a l l , o f any s o r t , employing any c o n c e p t s w h a t e v e r , t h a t i t is d i f f i c u l t t o s e e o p e r a t e a t t h e l e v e l o f i n d i v i d u a l human a c t s how anybody e v e r h a s even p a r t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a mistaken c a u s a l - c o n n e c t i o n b e l i e f ( t h a t t u r n s o u t t o be t r u e f o r o t h e r , unsuspected reasons).

some

--

--

I n s h o r t , none o f t h e f a c t o r s t h a t l e t u s s e e how such beached whale c l a i m s c o u l d come t o be made and t u r n o u t t o be t r u e even though v a r i o u s l y d e f e c t i v e and mistaken -- where t h i s c o n c e r n s p l a u s i b i l i t y r a t h e r t h a n b a r e l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y -- none o f t h e s e f a c t o r s seem t o be present i n the case of singular, causal, belief-desire-action claims, g i v e n Rosenberg's a c c o u n t o f t h e nomological s i t u a t i o n . There a r e no resemblances between b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n and whatever t h e t r u e c a u s e s and e f f e c t s o f human b e h a v i o r a r e , on h i s view, o r a t l e a s t none t h a t a r e w e l l known and o b v i o u s l i k e t h e resemblances between f i s h and whales. And t h e r e a r e no p l a u s i b l e , t e m p t i n g , b u t i n t h e i n s t a n c e , d e c e p t i v e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n s between b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o h i s s t o r y , which would even p a r t i a l l y j u s t i f y t h e e x p r e s s e d b e l i e f , and make it p l a u s i b l e t h a t a p e r s o n could come t o have t h e b e l i e f , and t h u s be a c a n d i d a t e f o r t h e G e t t i e r - s t y l e s w i t c h , where t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t p a r t i a l l y j u s t i f y t h e b e l i e f t u r n o u t n o t t o be what makes i t t r u e . F a i l i n g t h a t , Rosenberg's a t t e m p t t o r e s o l v e one i n c r e d i b i l i t y h a s g e n e r a t e d a n o t h e r one. Of c o u r s e , t h e r e might a story that w i l l f i l l i n t h e g a p s , j u s t a s Rosenberg concedes t h e r e might be a s t o r y l i n k i n g b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n someday, t h a t would remove t h e i n c r e d i b i l i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e ( a l l e g e d ) non-progress o f t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . But I d o n ' t t h i n k we have heard it y e t .

F i n a l l y , l e t u s t a k e up t h e q u e s t i o n whether (many o f ) o u r everyday, s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , belief-desire-action claims a r e i n f a c t t r u e . I have urged t h a t , assuming many o f them a r e t r u e , i t i s i n c r e d i b l e t h a t t h e nomological s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d be t h e way Rosenberg h o l d s t h a t i t is. I f t h e c o n c e p t s o f b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n do n o t d e s i g n a t e n a t u r a l k i n d s , d o n ' t d i v i d e n a t u r e a t t h e j o i n t s , a r e worse t h a n p h l o g i s t o n , t h e n , I have a r g u e d , w h i l e it is p e r h a p s l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e t h a t we make many s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m s employing t h e s e c o n c e p t s , and t h a t t h e s e c l a i m s t u r n o u t t o be t r u e ( f o r r e a s o n s we Faced d o n ' t have a c l u e a b o u t ) , t h e whole i d e a i s simply i n c r e d i b l e . w i t h t h i s o b j e c t i o n , it is a v a i l a b l e f o r Rosenberg t o move i n e i t h e r o f ( 1 ) s u p p l y a n a c c o u n t o f how t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n q u e s t i o n c o u l d two ways: come t o be made, be t r u e , and be r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e d , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e m a n i f e s t i m p l a u s i b i l i t y , o r ( 2 ) deny t h a t t h e y e v e r a r e t r u e . I f t h e y a r e n o t t r u e anyhow, t h e n t h e i n c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e i r b e i n g t r u e ( t h i n g s b e i n g a s Rosenberg s a y s t h e y a r e ) becomes moot. (There s t i l l would b e , I t h i n k , a r e s i d u a l awkwardness a b o u t why we c o n t i n u e t o make and b e l i e v e them i f none a r e t r u e , b u t l e t it l i e . ) It is t o t h i s denying t r u t h t o any o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s that I latter alternative now t u r n .

--

--

F i r s t l e t u s be c l e a r t h a t it is r e a l l y t r u t h t h a t we a r e concerned w i t h . D o u b t l e s s t h e r e a r e a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l r e a s o n s why we a r e i n c l i n e d t o view each o t h e r a s a g e n t s . P e r h a p s m o r a l i t y , r e l i g i o n , law, e t i q u e t t e , and s o c i a l l i f e g e n e r a l l y , r e q u i r e t h e u s e o f c o n c e p t s l i k e b e l i e f , d e s i r e , and a c t i o n . Maybe p a r t o f t h e p o i n t o f s a y i n g t h a t J o n e s k i l l e d Smith because he t h o u g h t Smith had named him i n h i s w i l l , and he wanted t h e e x t r a income s o o n e r r a t h e r t h a n l a t e r , is g i v e n i n terms of t h e moral/legal p r a c t i c e s of assessing r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , laying blame, and f i x i n g punishment. S t i l l , t h e r e remains t h e q u e s t i o n whether t h e s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m i s t r u e . The f a c t t h a t a p r a c t i c e s e r v e s s o c i e t a l needs d o e s n o t s e t t l e t h e q u e s t i o n whether a s t a t e m e n t made i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e p r a c t i c e i s t r u e o r f a l s e . P r a g m a t i c s , even anthropological/societal p r a g m a t i c s , d o e s n o t a b s o l v e u s from s e m a n t i c s . The h y p o t h e s i s b e f o r e u s t h e n is n o t t h a t t h e s e s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m s c a n n o t be shown t o p l a y i m p o r t a n t r o l e s i n complex s o c i e t a l a f f a i r s , b u t simply t h a t t h e y a r e a l l f a l s e l i t e r a l l y , none o f them t r u e . That a p e r s o n s h o u l d e n t e r t a i n such an h e r o i c escape r o u t e bespeaks, I t h i n k , an inadequate appreciation of what S h e r l o c k Holmes c a l l e d " t h e s c i e n c e o f d e t e c t i o n " . Frequently t h e s o l u t i o n o f a crime r e q u i r e s t h e d i s c o v e r y / a t t r i b u t i o n o f a motive, which, a s d e t e c t i v e s u s e t h e n o t i o n , i s n o t h i n g b u t a t r u n c a t e d , singular, causal, belief-desire-action claim. ( S t r i c t l y , I suppose, it i s a p r o p o s i t i o n a l f u n c t i o n t h a t d e r i v e s from such a c l a i m , s i n c e t h e a g e n t , t h e b e l i e f , a n d / o r t h e d e s i r e can be "unknowns".) D e t e c t i v e s , i n o r d e r t o f i g u r e o u t who d i d i t , t r e a t t h e c r i m i n a l a c t a s a p i e c e o f r a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r , and r e a s o n backwards, c o n j e c t u r i n g who would have had b e l i e f s and d e s i r e s which would have l e d ( c a u s e d ? ) them t o do t h e deed. And, i m p o r t a n t l y , s u c h r e a s o n i n g is n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y confirmed by t h e s u b s e q u e n t d i s c o v e r y o f c o n c l u s i v e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e t h a t would n o t have been a v a i l a b l e had t h e r e a s o n i n g n o t l e d t h e d e t e c t i v e s t o f o c u s t h e investigation a s they did.

--

The c l a i m t h a t t h e members o f t h e Oregon Taxpayers Union kidnapped S a l l y J o n e s , t h e d a u g h t e r o f w e a l t h y i n d u s t r i a l i s t , A u s t i n P. J o n e s , c a n c e r t a i n l y be t r u e , known t o be t r u e , and i n d e p e n d e n t l y v e r i f i e d by c o n c l u s i v e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e . And it c a n s u r e l y happen t h a t t h e way t h e d e t e c t i v e s f i g u r e d o u t who d i d i t was by r e a s o n i n g t h a t t h e Oregon T a x p a y e r s Union members were t h e o n l y o n e s w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e l i e f s and d e s i r e s t o c o n s t i t u t e a s u f f i c i e n t m o t i v e . And it c a n even be t r u e t h a t , a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , had t h i s p a r t i c u l a r b e l i e f - d e s i r e s e t n o t been a t t r i b u t e d t o them, t h e y would n e v e r have become t h e f o c u s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and hence t h a t t h e i n d e p e n d e n t , c o n f i r m a t o r y p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e would n e v e r have been d i s c o v e r e d . Doubtless t h e r e is a d i f f e r e n c e between t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e y d i d it (which is, i n t h i s c a s e , t r u e by h y p o t h e s i s ) and t h e c l a i m t h a t t h e y d i d it b e c a u s e t h e y wanted t h e n o t o r i e t y and t h o u g h t t h a t k i d n a p p i n g J o n e s f d a u g h t e r was a good way t o g e t i t . And it is c e r t a i n l y i n p r i n c i p l e p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e f o r m e r c l a i m be t r u e and t h e l a t t e r f a l s e . But is it l i k e l y t h a t n o t o n l y i n t h i s one c a s e , b u t i n a l l s u c h c a s e s where t h e s c i e n c e o f d e t e c t i o n t r i u m p h s , t h a t t h e key c l u e , t h e c r u c i a l f a c t t h a t " b r e a k s n t h e c a s e , t h e one v i t a l , s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m s h o u l d a l w a y s be f a l s e ? T h a t would a p p e a r t o be a c o n s i d e r a b l e c o i n c i d e n c e . Here t h e d e t e c t i v e s make t h i s f a l s e c l a i m , i n consequence o f which t h e y f o c u s t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a c e r t a i n way, d i s c o v e r c o n c l u s i v e p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e ( h i t h e r t o u n s u s p e c t e d ) , and apprehend t h e a c t u a l k i d n a p p e r s who c o n f e s s . How l u c k y . S t i l l , some m i g h t n o t f i n d t h i s d i s c o n c e r t i n g . They m i g h t , f o r example, have a vague i d e a t h a t w h i l e t h e p a r t i c u l a r , s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l , b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m was f a l s e , t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e c r i m e was n o t t h e cosmic c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t i t l o o k s . Because w h i l e t h e i n t e n t i o n a l i s t i c , s i n g u l a r , c a u s a l c l a i m i n q u e s t i o n was s t r i c t l y f a l s e , t h e r e was, p e r h a p s , a p a r a l l e l p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e t o which t h e d e t e c t i v e s were s u b l i m i n a l l y c u e i n g , o r p e r h a p s , some e v o l u t i o n a r y , f i t n e s s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r why t h e y a r r i v e d a t t h e f i e l d where t h e e v i d e n c e was b u r i e d . ( T h e r e a r e , a f t e r a l l , more t h i n g s i n p h y s i c a l i s t i c Heaven and E a r t h t h a n a r e dreamed o f i n o u r commonsense, i n t e n t i o n a l i s t i c philosophy.) T h i s l i n e would, I t h i n k , be w o r t h p u r s u i n g i f it were n o t f o r t h e problem o f f a l s e b e l i e f s . T h e r e i s , a f t e r a l l , some p l a u s i b i l i t y t o t h e vague s u g g e s t i o n t h a t p e r h a p s t h e r e e x i s t shadow, p a r a l l e l p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e s somehow r e l a t e d t o t r u e b e l i e f s , o r t h a t e v o l u t i o n a r y , f i t n e s s c o n s i d e r a t i o n s might p r e d i s p o s e toward t r u e b e l i e f s . But t h e s e s u g g e s t i o n s l a c k p l a u s i b i l i t y when f a l s e b e l i e f s ( o n t h e p a r t o f t h e a g e n t s ) a r e t h e key t o s o l v i n g t h e c r i m e . C o n s i d e r t h e c a s e t h a t w o r r i e s Amsterdam's F i n e s t i n The C o r p s e on t h e Dike ( v a n d e W e t e r i n g 1976). They have two, u n s o l v e d , a p p a r e n t l y u n r e l a t e d b u t c u r i o u s l y c o n t i g u o u s , c r i m e s on t h e i r hands. T h e r e is a murder o f a h a r m l e s s e c c e n t r i c , and a n o r g a n i z e d t h e f t r i n g n e x t d o o r . They a r e w e l l on t h e i r way toward s o l v i n g t h e t h e f t r i n g , b u t t h e murder h a s them stumped. Nobody a p p e a r s t o have a m o t i v e , and t h o s e who might have a l s o have a n a l i b i . F i n a l l y i t o c c u r s t o t h e d e t e c t i v e s ( s i m u l t a n e o u s l y , b u t i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) t h a t t h e man was murdered by m i s t a k e . Nobody a c t u a l l y

had a r e a l m o t i v e , b u t somebody had a m i s t a k e n motive. Somebody f a l s e l y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e murdered man was p r o f e s s i o n a l l y connected w i t h t h e l e a d e r o f t h e t h e f t r i n g . So, i n o r d e r t o b r i n g p r e s s u r e on t h e l e a d e r o f t h e t h e f t r i n g , t h e y murdered t h e h a r m l e s s e c c e n t r i c . T h i s was t h e " b r e a k t h r o u g h w d i s c o v e r y t h a t l e d t o t h e l e a d e r o f a r i v a l gang becoming t h e f o c u s o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , and s u r e enough, s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , i n d e p e n d e n t , c o n f i r m i n g , p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e was d i s c o v e r e d . What i s i n t e r e s t i n g a b o u t t h i s c a s e is t h a t t h e key f a c t , t h e v i t a l d i s c o v e r y , t h e breakthrough, involved a t t r i b u t i n g a f a l s e b e l i e f a s p a r t of t h e b e l i e f - d e s i r e - a c t i o n c l a i m . And it was c r u c i a l t h a t i t be f a l s e . A l l the e l i g i b l e belief-desire-action claims t h a t a t t r i b u t e d t r u e b e l i e f s had been r u l e d o u t , t h e s u s p e c t s e l i m i n a t e d from c o n s i d e r a t i o n . It was t h e v e r y f a l s i t y o f t h e a t t r i b u t e d b e l i e f t h a t had been a s t u m b l i n g b l o c k , and t h a t was, when r e c o g n i z e d , t h e key t o s o l v i n g t h e crime. Now s u r e l y i f a l l s i n g u l a r , causal, belief-desire-action claims a r e f a l s e , t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s c r i m e does c o n s t i t u t e a cosmic c o i n c i d e n c e . No "shadown p h y s i c a l s t r u c t u r e s p a r a l l e l i n g t r u e b e l i e f s h e r e , and no f i t n e s s s e l e c t e d t r u e belief-mimics e i t h e r . J u s t sheer coincidence. I n c o n c l u s i o n , l e t me p o i n t o u t one more l o s s a t t e n d a n t upon t h e hypothesized f a l s i t y of a l l s i n g u l a r , causal, belief-desire-action c l a i m s . I f t h e s e were a l l f a l s e , I do n o t s e e how we c o u l d make t h a t jewel o f a mid-century p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n , J . L . A u s t i n ' s ( 1 9 5 7 ) d i s t i n c t i o n between d o i n g something by m i s t a k e and d o i n g i t by a c c i d e n t . A s f a r a s I c a n s e e , t h a t g l o r i o u s f o o t n o t e a b o u t s h o o t i n g donkeys would i t s e l f e x p i r e i f no such c l a i m s were t r u e . And t h a t is a b i t much.

References Austin, J.L. (1957). "A P l e a For Excuses." p r o c e e - a n a s o f t h e AristoJ e l i a n S o c i e t y lNew S e r i e s ) 5 7 : 1-30. (As r e p r i n t e d i n f'hilosoDhica1 P a o e r s , Oxford : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1961 Pages 123-1 52 .)

.

Davidson, D.D. (1970). "Mental Events." In e r i e n c e and T h e o r v , Amherst: U n i v e r s i t y o f E d i t e d by L. F o s t e r a n d J. Swanson. Massachusetts Press. Pages 79-101.

------------- .

(1973). "The M a t e r i a l Mind." I n L o a i c . Methodologmd P h i l o s o ~ h vof S c i e n c e I V , ( S t u d i e s i n _ionic and t h e Foundat i o n s of Mathematics, Volume 74 .) E d i t e d by P. S u p p e s Amsterdam: North Holland. Pages 709-722.

Donnellan, K. (1966). p h i l o s o o h i c a l Re-

"Ref e r e n c e a n d D e f i n i t e D e s c r i p t i o n s . " 75: 281-304.

------------ .

(1968). " P u t t i n g Humpty Dumpty T o g e t h e r Again." p h i l o s o ~ h i c a lReviey 77: 203-215.

G e t t i e r , E. ( 1963). 23: 121-123.

"Is J u s t i f i e d True B e l i e f Knowledge?"

Analysis

G r i c e , H.P. (1975). "Logic and Conversation." I n S y n t a x and Semantics, Volume 3. Edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan. New York: Academic Press. Pages 41-58. MacKay, A.F. (1968). "Mr. Donnellan and Humpty Dumpty o n R e f e r r i n g . " The P h i l o s o ~ h i c a lReview 77 : 197-202. ( 1976). Microeconomic Laws, Rosenberg, A. P i t t s b u r g h Press.

------------. Science,

Pittsburgh:

University of

(1980). S c ' o b o Bal timore : Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y Press.

------------.

( 1983). " I f Economics I s n ' t S c i e n c e , What I s I t ? " P h i l o s o o h i c a l Forurq 14: 296-314.

van de Metering, J. Mifflin.

(1976).

The C o r ~ s eon t h e Dike,

Boston:

J&=

Houghton