DOUBTLESS: CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4.  The Given.

Suppose Peter says to Paul, "That is a given."  That means that Peter refuses to argue or quibble about something--he completely accepts what Paul says. 

(1)  For instance, Paul might say that there is an uncountable number of stars in the sky, and Peter would admit, "That is a given."

(2)  Paul might during a game of chess say, "That's a pawn!  You can't advance him three spaces."  Peter would again admit, "That is a given."

(3)  Paul might say, "We are in the living room."  Peter would again admit, "That is a given." 

Let's look at each of these cases.  

In (1), neither Peter nor Paul can count the stars.  They cannot even be sure how to tell which astronomer can most reliably inform them of the number.  Yet the knowledge that the stars are incredibly numerous is so general that Peter doesn't argue.

In (2), there is nothing in the nature of the pawn that requires it to move only one or two spaces.  The agreement on this rule, which has no basis in the nature of things, is, however, so universal that Peter doesn't argue.

In (3), Peter does not even think about how to prove that he is in the living room.  He accepts the evidence of his eyes.  Note that the reliability of his eyes is also a given.

We can conclude that there are several different kinds of statements that we completely accept the moment we hear them.  Why are we so agreeable?

As for (1), we remember Lippman's remark on the limitations of knowledge.  
Conceding that something is a given can be as much an expression of modesty as it is of honesty.  Peter may not be able to prove that the stars are virtually uncountable, but (1) they constantly appear to be uncountable and (2) the consistency of every source he has ever considered on the topic has fairly beat him into conviction.    

The living room, though, is not only seen, but felt and even smelled.  Certain philosophers might tell Peter that his living room is not really there, that everything is an illusion, or at any rate that he cannot prove it is there, but Peter knows that if he ever invited such skeptics into his house, the first thing they would do is make themselves at home on his bean-bag chair.  They are bound to admit tacitly what he frankly acknowledges:  the living room exists.  

Finally, Peter's acceptance of the rules of chess may be due to his acceptance of convention.  He may also acknowledge that the experts agree broadly on what he understands to be the rules.  Finally, his enjoyment of chess makes convention and expertise unimportant; the pleasure he experiences depends crucially on his adherence to the rules.

As a last remark, we note that by conceding these givens and others, Peter saves himself and a lot of other people a huge amount of time by not insisting on reams and reams of unnecessary demonstrations of all potentially demonstrable facts.  He knows by experience that this unquestioning acceptance of seeming facts has paid off grandly.  

APPENDIX

While his generous concession of givens has not cost him his life, the same cannot be said for everyone.  It is not clear how many lives were lost due to institutional resistance to Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis's hand-washing regimen for gynecologists.  A short look at maternal mortality in the 18th-20th centuries can be found here.  An interesting history of the subject may be found here.  I have an uneasy feeling that the medical establishment has still not finished with Dr. Semmelweis.  For instance, this article explains that contemporaries rejected his views as a post hoc propter hoc fallacy without explaining why they were wrong to do so.  I have twice found references dismissing Dr. Semmelweis.  The first time I did not save the reference.  The second time I did:  "This is not to suggest that data of this level of confidence are sufficient to introduce changes in clinical practice, which is influenced by medical tradition and cultural and other factors" (go here for citation).  Articles contra Dr. Demmelweis continue to appear.  E.g., see Dana Tulodziecki's “Shattering the Myth of Semmelweis.” Philosophy of Science 80, no. 5 (2013): 1065–75. doi:10.1086/673935.  For a  statistical review of Dr. Semmelweis's work is available here and here. For a discussion of continuing "physician resistance" on this topic go here.  For a discussion of the Semmelweis-reflex, go here.   I recall reading in a JAMA journal that a doctor expressed a hope that no one would remember what they did to Dr. Semmelweis; he sadly did not express the hope that they would greet unpopular opinions more charitably.