Loved this. I'm learning so much. There are specific issues on which I disagree with James, but the overall philosophy rings very close to my own views.
Really appreciate the cross-post and the comment. I'm working on at least one more piece about James, but then I'm hoping to turn my attention to some of the other figures in pragmatism. As I said in the comment on your Manifesto, I admire that you went big in that way. My approach is about digging around in their writing and bringing up nuggets that seem to cast light on problems we're seeing today.
Great article, but I feel like I'm missing something. Pragmatism would need to be *proactive* to have any actual impact on these broader issues of technology, correct?
You point to Ethan Mollick as an exemplar of empiricism. Sure, he's empirically exploring AI. But this part of his quote jumped out at me: "Whether we wanted them or not, we now have a form of AI". Note that his empiricism is strictly *reactive*. The genie is already out of the bottle.
Yet how does trial-and-error work with exponential tech? How do you safely perform a trial when the consequences of any error would be beyond acceptable?
How does a pluralistic society develop a pragmatic definition of the "good" that is strong enough to resist the logic of the marketplace? China has no trouble doing this. What if extreme dogma is a necessary counter-weight?
What if pragmatism is simply not reconcilable with exponential tech?
Thanks so much for the thoughtful questions. Depending what you mean by proactive, I think pragmatism is proactive, or at least it takes action as necessary to understand and answer questions. I could have been clearer in my description by saying Mollick is the best example of *pragmatic* empirical inquiry. What makes him pragmatical to my mind is that he answers questions through experimentation and observation without losing sight of larger questions about social meaning of these new tools.
Your recent essays on Tech for Life about technology and philosophy seem spot on to me in suggesting we need to rethink the relationship between theory and practice. I think the early pragmatists did exactly that in ways that help us get beyond dualisms, not just the theory/practice dualism but also mind/body, thought/action, and self/world. There are no easy answers about how best to understand and control the social use of technology, especially in limiting their use in a social democracy. However, I believe pragmatism gives us a better way of formulating questions about social and technological problems, and maybe answering them.
Loved this. I'm learning so much. There are specific issues on which I disagree with James, but the overall philosophy rings very close to my own views.
Really appreciate the cross-post and the comment. I'm working on at least one more piece about James, but then I'm hoping to turn my attention to some of the other figures in pragmatism. As I said in the comment on your Manifesto, I admire that you went big in that way. My approach is about digging around in their writing and bringing up nuggets that seem to cast light on problems we're seeing today.
Great article, but I feel like I'm missing something. Pragmatism would need to be *proactive* to have any actual impact on these broader issues of technology, correct?
You point to Ethan Mollick as an exemplar of empiricism. Sure, he's empirically exploring AI. But this part of his quote jumped out at me: "Whether we wanted them or not, we now have a form of AI". Note that his empiricism is strictly *reactive*. The genie is already out of the bottle.
Yet how does trial-and-error work with exponential tech? How do you safely perform a trial when the consequences of any error would be beyond acceptable?
How does a pluralistic society develop a pragmatic definition of the "good" that is strong enough to resist the logic of the marketplace? China has no trouble doing this. What if extreme dogma is a necessary counter-weight?
What if pragmatism is simply not reconcilable with exponential tech?
Thanks so much for the thoughtful questions. Depending what you mean by proactive, I think pragmatism is proactive, or at least it takes action as necessary to understand and answer questions. I could have been clearer in my description by saying Mollick is the best example of *pragmatic* empirical inquiry. What makes him pragmatical to my mind is that he answers questions through experimentation and observation without losing sight of larger questions about social meaning of these new tools.
Your recent essays on Tech for Life about technology and philosophy seem spot on to me in suggesting we need to rethink the relationship between theory and practice. I think the early pragmatists did exactly that in ways that help us get beyond dualisms, not just the theory/practice dualism but also mind/body, thought/action, and self/world. There are no easy answers about how best to understand and control the social use of technology, especially in limiting their use in a social democracy. However, I believe pragmatism gives us a better way of formulating questions about social and technological problems, and maybe answering them.