Against Relativism: A Philosophical Defense of Method [Paperback]

James Harris (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 11, 1999

Recent decades have witnessed the extraordinary growth of radical relativism, a doctrine which now dominates the entire culture, from popular music to journalism and from religion to school curricula. According to the radical relativist creed, any proposition can be true or false in relation to a chosen framework, the evaluation of fundamental theories or 'paradigms' is beyond argument, there are no universal standards of rationality, and, methodologically, 'Anything goes!'. As James Harris explains in Against Relativism, the new relativism undoes the work of the Enlightenment and inevitably leads to the conclusion that Galileo was wrong to insist that the Earth indeed moves. Succor for relativism has come from many philosophical schools, both Analytic and 'Continental'. Among the sources of the new relativism are the collapse of Logical Positivism and the shift within anthropology from a linear evolutionary model to numerous models for understanding human culture. In this detailed critique, Professor Harris has selected the strongest and most plausible arguments for relativism within contemporary academic philosophy. He turns the techniques of relativism against relativism itself, showing that it is ultimately self-refuting or otherwise ineffectual. He demonstrates that Quine's rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction appeals to the very analytic truths Quine tries to dispel; that Kuhn's celebrated account of paradigms must be either self-refuting or unintelligible; that Rorty cannot avoid presuppposing the epistemological principles he attacks; and that (although feminist criticisms of science exert a welcome corrective) attempts to develop a distinctively 'feminist science'are misconceived and unhelpful to feminism. In all these discussions, the author explains the arguments he is criticizing, for the benefit of the non-specialist reader, so that this work can serve as a partisan but fair introduction to some of the most important of present-day philosophy.

Product Details

• Paperback: 228 pages
• Publisher: Open Court; 1st Printing edition (January 11, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0812692020
• ISBN-13: 978-0812692020
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,407,987 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Author conflates truth with justification, May 11, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: Against Relativism: A Philosophical Defense of Method (Paperback)

Although I agree with the author that radical relativism is absurd, I don't agree with his proposal for an acceptable form of realism. He advocates the philosophy of Peirce, along with Peirce's confusion over the difference between truth and justification.

The author takes truth to be those beliefs to which the scientific method leads us in the long run. The question arises, are these beliefs true because the scientific method produces them, or does the scientific method produce them because they are true?

A realist will say that science works because it gets at the truth, while an idealist will say that the truth exists because of science. This leaves the idealist open to charges of relativism, because on his/her view, truth is relative to epistemology.

Harris seems to be an idealist in this regard, and thus he himself is guilty of radical relativism.

Epistemology is a function of truth. It is only because certain things cannot both be true that science is able to function at all. This is not a restriction which science imposes upon itself; it's a restriction which the world imposes on science.

Aside from this crucial problem, Harris also shows his lack of training in the history of philosophy. For example, he accuses Aristotle of sexism for using the word 'man', obviously unaware that the Greek is 'anthropos', which explicitly includes men and women.

On the whole this book is a good idea that suffers from poor execution.