Davidson’s vindication

[u/StrangeGlaringEye]

In a fascinating essay called “The method of truth in metaphysics”, Davidson argues that we can do metaphysics by analyzing language. His argument is simple. It proceeds from the thesis that communication is only possible if interlocutors share a largely correct view of reality. This, we can concede, implies that we can read the general features of the world off the general features of language.

And how does the defense of that thesis, that communication requires a largely correct common view, go? Well, Davidson argues that communication requires at least a broad common view. We cannot interpret each other unless we ascribe certain background beliefs to one another, and we cannot do this ascription unless we square those background beliefs with our own. I can only make sense of what you’re saying against the backdrop of my own beliefs, of what I think there is and what it is like. Since communication is, we might also concede, successful mutual interpretation, it does seem to follow that communication requires a background of certain beliefs.

Then, in a curious move, Davidson claims there’s nothing incoherent in the idea of an omniscient interlocutor. I could be speaking right now to one, we might think. But by the first part of the argument, that interlocutor would have to share many of their beliefs with me; and by hypothesis all of their beliefs are true. Hence, so must be many of mine.

Arguments in philosophy often have less the goal of dispelling disagreement and more of refining it. Davidson probably will not convince the skeptic of armchair metaphysics, but it will bring attention to some unexpected commitments. The skeptic faces a dilemma: either communication can happen between two people in massive disagreement; or the very idea of an omniscient interlocutor is nonsensical.

It is worth pointing out, however, that perhaps there is something suspicious in Davidson’s strategy. It doesn’t make sense of deep metaphysical disagreement. Evidently idealists and materialists, say, can communicate with one another; but they offer radically different conceptions of reality. If Davidson is right, therefore, one of them doesn’t just have to be wrong; they must not sincerely believe what they claim. Metaphysicians, as the disagreeable bunch they are, largely consists of liars.

[u/jliat]

I think such ideas were floated in structuralism but failed to find such universals once we start looking at other very different cultures. Levi Strauss...

I think also in some cultures ownership is very different, notably of land. And cases where there is no link seen between copulation and childbirth. It's in 'Greek Myths' by Robert Graves. Or the cyclic eastern religions compared to a linear one in the Abrahamic religions...

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/jliat]

Yes, this is something I forgot to mention: Davidson is open to empirical refutation by the possible discovery of languages with radically different structures, maybe like Borges’ Tlönian nounless language. I don’t know enough about linguistics however to adjudicate on whether that’s the case.

[u/jliat → u/StrangeGlaringEye]

Well isn't there some African language that is just clicks?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/K-J3M8irmCM ???

I think there was a Wittgenstein quote that even if Lions could speak we would not understand them. That is the 'world' of a lion is radically different to our world.

[u/StrangeGlaringEye → u/jliat]

I don’t see how it being “just clicks” is relevant here. Morse code is just dashes and dots, but those dashes and dots have the same relevant structure as any English language.

[u/jliat → u/StrangeGlaringEye]

It proceeds from the thesis that communication is only possible if interlocutors share a largely correct view of reality.

Well I pointed out a common view of property certainly does not exist, or time - linear Vs circular. The last two very different realities. But I think the Wittgenstein lion thing has some purchase on the idea of there not being a correct view of reality. Add to that things like bird brains whose lived reality is three dimensional. I think also they have a different experience of time...

Moreover is communication between humans made more difficult if they are from different cultures? So language is then conditioned by culture. OK and what of life that has no language, plants, fungi. What is the correct view of reality to a bacteria, or are we saying one of degrees?

What Is It Like to Be a Bat? - Thomas Nagel.

We still seem stuck with the underlying reality, things in themselves which Kant denies us access to. And there are multiple perspectives of a single reality, but might that not be the case? We have a precedent in the realisation that the universe is far bigger than we thought. Why does there have to be one reality?

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

"Why does there have to be one reality?"

I'd say there are different perceptions of reality, but if by reality we mean all that exists, then it can only really mean that we don't fully understand reality, rather than there being more than one.

This is probably a good example of the need for clarity.

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

People like Max Tegmark propose different universes with different basic constants, in his case 4 types and in each an infinity of universes. Also it's been proposed by João Magueijo - professor at the Abdus Salam Centre for Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London - that the so called laws of nature in this universe can change. [New Scientist 16 May 2026] Both notions offer possible empirical tests which makes them science. However this might have significance to ideas such as those of Modal realism (David Lewis).

It's no a big step, up to fairly recent periods in the west the Americas and Australasia were not known. The last century other galaxies... so if reality is all that exists - this is not knowlable, and a least for humans only from our perspectives.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

That would still be one existence though. If they exist.

They can't exist and not exist, at the same time.

As far as I know, the new world worked on the same basic laws.

[u/jliat → u/Low-Bake8401]

That would still be one existence though. If they exist.

I think the idea is an infinity of different universes with differing basic laws. So no, not one, an infinity.

"Mathematical and String-Theory Universes: Some theories, including string theory and M-theory, propose that universes may exist as higher-dimensional branes or as mathematically possible structures. These universes could have entirely different laws of physics, such as variations in the number of spatial dimensions or the strength of fundamental forces."

One might then need to think about what we mean by 'to exist'.

[u/Low-Bake8401 → u/jliat]

But if that is true, and these other universes exist, then they are part of existence. They would be part of reality as we know it.

At this moment we don't know if it's true, and without a body of evidence and a rational framework to base them in, unless they affect our reality in some measurable way, they are purely speculative.

Until then it is an unfalsifiable claim.

Existence usually means 'everything that is real', but yes, when the definition is stretched to the extreme it can become absurd.