Customer Reviews

Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate: Unfashionable Essays

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Haack's book seeks to respond to the increasingly noisy voices in the academy which are clamoring for all the typical postmodern tenets to be taken as brute fact....the non-existence of any essential anything (especially selves), the pure relativism that chops the universe up into a fractured perspectivalism, and the mistrust for "methodology" of any sort as a "hegemonic discourse." Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate makes an epistemologically sound reply to that academic cacophony; Haack relies on C.S. Peirce's thought to establish the legitimacy of the scientific method, the possibility of the existence of Truth, and the good old-fashioned "wissenschaftlich" approach to philosophy. It is the first time that I have encountered a thinker who manages to balance the commitments of contemporary, liberal academics with traditional philosophical hermeneutics. Well-written, never dry (except when quoting from Peirce!), and generally very refreshing. Anyone in the academy can benefit from her perspective. Bravo to Haack for seeking a responsible end to the posturing and absurdity of so much of the postmodern "platform."

Susan Haack is a pragmaticist. Don't let the label fool you. Notice I wrote pragmatICIST, not pragmaTIST. The difference, you ask? Well, in contradistinction to Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnams 'pragmatism' which stresses anti-science and devalues terms like 'objectivity' and 'truth,' Haack is a philosophical descendent of Charles Peirce and John Dewey (begrudginly, I'll throw William James' name in, but that's a stretch). These essays are brilliant defences of the pragmaticist vision of truth, scientific method (or, if we like, methods) and objective knowledge.

If all that sounds too philosophical to the average reader, it most likely is not. Haack writes with a down to earth style, a sparkling British wit and a very even flow; especially considering the complexity of some ideas expressed in these pages. It should be mentioned though that although topics covered in these essays include multiculturalism, feminist epistemology, sham reasoning and relativism, this book is much more philosophical in nature than others. Haack is not just another author throwing down the 'science wars' gauntlet (not that it hasn't been thrown down enough already). Whereas most books attacking the abuses of feminism, relativism and postmodern thinking in science, while rightfully exposing their disasterous consequences, end up more as social commentary than actual reasoned arguments; and nary a philosophical arguemt is launched. This is precisely the void that Haack so flawlessly fills.

Highlites include a brilliantly constructed 'panel' discussion between 1800's pragmaticist Charles S. Peirce and modern neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty. Haack constructed the dialogue using exerpts of their work and she does a beautiful job making it feel like a discussion. Also, the essay 'Puzzling Out Science' and 'Science as Social' do an excellent job showing that science (contrary to the old Baconian and new 'pragmatist' thought) can be both social and individual. The last two essays deviate a bit from the underlying sceince theme, tackling affirmative action and the absurdities of the academy's expectation that professors (along with masters and doctoral students), to achieve noteriety, must argue the most outlandish theories in the most outlandish way. True to form, these essays are not blank social criticisms so common in books today but are well reasoned, philosophical explorations. The only problem with the book is one common to essay collections. The essays tended to repeat themselves from time to time, not only in ideas (towards the end, you WILL be predicting what Haack's next line will be) but in phrasing. Save for that, flawless!

Susan Haack is a moderate, passionately so. She rejects both the Old Defential view of science ("science has a priviledged epistemic position and produces objective results"), and the New Cynic position ("science is nothing but a social construct"). Rather, she stakes out a thoughful and forceful middle ground, one that recognizes both the social dimensions of science, while at the same time pointing out that science deserves not a priviledged position, but certainly one that is worthy of respect and consideration.

The essays in this collection expand on these themes. Most of the essays are adapted from presentations Dr. Haack had given, and therefore present a somewhat dizzying mix of the overview-for-the-layman with the chat-with-other-experts. Much of the discussion of, for example, the New Cynic position takes for granted that the reader is familiar not only with the arguments advanced by the postmodernist deconstruction movement, but also the particular players in the movement. On the other hand, there is enough information for the layman to get his or her bearings on the thrust of these arguments.

The essays cover a number of interesting subjects: in "Is science social? Yes and no", Haack discusses what benefits may be obtained from recognizing the social forces in the sciences, while at the same time making a convincing case that "science is social" is either a trivial observation, or an incorrect one. Another essay addresses affirmative action from a somewhat outsider's point of view (Haack is british), and takes a refreshing tack: what is affirmative action meant to accomplish, and why? And does it actually accomplish this? The sobering conclusion is that it does not, and that the very real ills it addresses need to be fix by major surgery, not the simple touch-up of affirmative action. At the same time, she exposes many of the contradictions and flaws of the "feminist epistemology" movements.

Other essays discuss the role of metaphor in philosophy, and Haack's own middle ground between the Foundationalists and Conherentism in epistemology. Many also expand on a particularly interesting metaphor of Haack's own: that doing science is like doing a crossword puzzle, in which entries are judged not only by how they address the clue (experimental evidence), but also by how they intersect with other established entries (background theory) and how supported does entries are independent of the current entry. Kuhn's paradigm shifts would be the equivalent of replacing a long entry that has been used to fill out many shorter ones, to give one example of how the metaphor is used.

Haack's positions and analysis are moderate in the sense of landing her solidly in the middle ground between the extremes that have dominated the public discourse. A refreshing change, and one worthy of further exploration. I give it four stars rather than five only because it will be hard reading for many, given the assumption of familiarity many of the essays have.

Haack is to be commended for having compiled these essays and made them available to the educated public. It is refreshing to hear someone "talk sense."

A little background on one point: Richard Rorty was an Ordinary Language Philosopher. When it became clear that OLP was exterminating all other schools of thought in philosophy departments by hiring only OLPs, a group calling itself the Committee for Pluralism in Philosophy called the attention of those remaining to this problem. To counter this, some of the OLPs began to take upon themselves the names of the schools that were being extinguished. Rorty chose to call himself a Pragmatist. He never was and never has become a Pragmatist. (Neopragmatists were an outgrowth of classical pragmatism and specialized in the philosophy of science. Prominent names are Sidney Morgenbesser, Hilary Putnam (in his earlier years), W. V. O. Quine, etc.) There is nothing pragmatic or pragmatist about "postmodernism".

Haack's main concern in this book is science. For a similar approach focussing on literature, see A Book Worth Reading. This book offers a pragmaticist approach to the philosophy of literature, taken as the question, What makes a book valuable or good?

This book is written in a very clear and engaging style. Though parts of some of the essays require some background in philosophy, the issues tackled (such as feminism and multiculturalism) are relevant to anyone who cares about the cultural and intellectual life of this country.

In this eye-opening collection Susan Haack does, and encourages her readers to do, what everyone gives lip service to but rarely practices: examining one's assumptions on contemporary matters to see if they've been arrived at and are being held rationally...or accidently. Accordingly such areas as feminism, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. are looked at, but here for a change scrutinized with a clear head and through fresh eyes. It's not so much that Ms. Haack has an agenda as that she's concerned the search for truth in these areas pay heed to clear definition, logic, evidence, and proceed out of an unbiased sensibility. Tall but welcome orders for any age and all readers.

A decent collection of essays, ranging on pertinent current topics in philosophy such as pragmatism, relativism, feminism, and so on. There is a bit of unevenness in Haack's approach; some of the essays could have been slightly more focused. Also, I generally prefer collections which have some tying together done as part of an introduction. The introduction does not do enough stage setting - though not by much.

Susan Haack writes with true insight and intelligence. Her positions, against the excesses of post-modernist criticism and extreme political cant, are well argued and incisive. However, I wish she could write better. Her book is written in academese, with its fractured sentence structure, inconsistent tone and obtuse terminology, in some places almost impossible to slog through. Still, try it: you may learn a great deal.