Ian MacDonald is an educator and writer at the University of Waterloo who investigates the interrelations between inquiry, meaning, and methods. He focuses on the writings of Peirce, Clifford, and Welby and defended his dissertation, Communal Inferentialism: Charles S. Peirce’s Critique of Epistemic Individualism, in 2019.
What’s your favorite quote?
“We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology”—E.O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth.
What topic do you think is under explored in philosophy?
The concept of reality. The choice probably will surprise you, because most philosophers think there’s nothing more to say about it. I used to think that, too, until I read Charles Peirce, the founder of pragmatism, whose work I focused on in my dissertation. There’s a tendency to think of reality as external to the mind, even as entirely mind-independent. While there’s something right about stressing reality’s mind-independence, philosophers can take it too far. They sometimes assume that reality transcends the mind. That creates several problems. To select a few: it imposes a gulf between the mind and reality. Worse, it seems conceptually empty or meaningless—after all, what could someone have in mind here? Also, it disconnects the notion of reality from our practices and conduct. In response, Peirce develops an innovative view: reality must be cognizable (it must be to be meaningful) but doesn’t depend on particular minds. It remains independent of you and me. Children learn the difference between make-believe and reality, developing a sense of what depends on their minds and what doesn’t. Building up from what’s familiar, Peirce’s approach spotlights the need for a collective and continuous process of inquiry. He holds that reality is discoverable. In the long run, we would know it if we were to use our best methods of inquiry (informed by logic and science) and form an ever-growing community (one that filters out ignorance and error). There’s much to explore here, I admit. But I find the approach plausible, especially considering the problems noted above.
My runner-up: Systems. Philosophers engage in systematic thinking but don’t usually dig into this topic. Understanding complex systems requires novel approaches and innovative thinking, which philosophers can offer. Such systems often resist current predictions and explanations, yet their functioning is critical to our survival, well-being, and future. For example, we must consider ecosystems, climate systems, the brain, society, and various ones now using artificial intelligence. These systems often exceed our cognitive grasp in many ways, although valuable things hinge on them. I see this topic, including the study of systems within systems, as having a promising future.
What are you reading right now? Would you recommend it?
Adrian Desmond’s biography of T. H. Huxley. It’s witty, insightful, and engaging. Huxley was “Darwin’s bulldog,” known for being outspoken and following an argument wherever it would lead. Notoriously, Huxley delivered “The Evidence of the Miracle of the Resurrection” to the Metaphysical Society. The daring zoologist brazenly voiced hard-hitting doubts about the evidence of the purported miracle. Predictably, the talk rankled several of that society’s Christian members. Three months later, echoing Huxley’s sentiments, W. K. Clifford delivered his “The Ethics of Belief” to the same debating society, revealing their joint commitment to evidentialism.
What are you working on right now?
I’m reassessing “The Ethics of Belief,” the piece that put Clifford on the philosophical map. It’s best known for the emphatic statement, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford was the brilliant British mathematician and secular philosopher whom William James targeted in “The Will to Believe.” When James delivered that influential talk to the philosophy clubs at Yale and Brown, Clifford had been dead for nearly two decades, making it impossible for him to have replied. Even now, we typically read Clifford’s classic essay as imposing the following stringent constraint: it’s wrong to form beliefs without sufficient evidence. Of course, where do we set the evidential bar, and what does it mean to have enough evidence? Issues of this variety often turn into impasses. Most commentators see Clifford as insisting on sufficient evidence because he values truth the most.
One of my pandemic projects was rereading Clifford’s non-mathematical writings, including his classic work. I arrived at an alternative view of “The Ethics of Belief,” which I’m still defending: Clifford’s ethics is based on trust, not truth. The ethics of belief isn’t about sufficient evidence (at least not in an epistemological sense unconnected to what Clifford calls “The Duty of Inquiry,” the title of his essay’s first section). Instead, it’s mostly about having enough evidence to answer our questions and satisfy our doubts, especially before we believe something. It comes down to trust and everyone conducting responsible inquiries before they reach their beliefs and make up their minds. If someone believes something based on individualistic interests and bypasses inquiry, it’s a betrayal of society’s trust. So, I’m reassessing Clifford’s classic essay based on mutual trust and fair inquiry. Since the Jamesian tradition has long overshadowed it, Clifford’s work merits fresh scrutiny. As you can tell, I have plenty of work to do on this topic.
What is your favorite thing that you’ve written?
My paper “Did Peirce Misrepresent Descartes? Reinvestigating and Defending Peirce’s Case.” It won the Peirce Essay Prize in 2019, and I presented it at the APA’s meeting in Philadelphia in 2020. This year, I’m eager to participate in the Peirce Society’s panel on The Pragmatic Maxim at the APA’s conference in San Francisco.
This section of the APA Blog is designed to get to know our fellow philosophers a little better. We’re including profiles of APA members that spotlight what captures their interest not only inside the office, but also outside of it. We’d love for you to be a part of it, so please contact us via the interview nomination form here to nominate yourself or a friend.
Dr. Sabrina D. MisirHiralall is an editor at the Blog of the APA who currently teaches philosophy, religion, and education courses solely online for Montclair State University, Three Rivers Community College, and St. John’s University.
