Should we get rid of theory?

As I mentioned below, Richard Posner's argument in Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy provides a nice jumping off point for one of my favorite questions: can someone explain to me what the world looks like without theory? Posner apparently argues in his book (so says the review - I have not yet read the book) that "everyday pragmatism" should be the preferred decision-making "mood." "Everyday pragmatism," as contrasted with the philosophical pragmatism of Dewey, James, and Rorty, is "disdainful of abstract theory and intellectual pretension." Well, everyone is against "intellectual pretension," even those who accidentally end up being intellectually pretentious, so I take him to mean, "lets get rid of abstract theory and focus on the results we want." That sort of "anti-theory" theory seems fairly common to me. The thing is, I don't really get it.

As the author of the review points out the advice to "just do what makes sense" leaves out a lot of questions: "if pragmatism is merely the effort to do what makes sense, how can we know what makes sense without some overarching set of values or principles by which to judge the consequences of our actions?" That's exactly right, and, especially in a democracy, that difficulty must be answered by fans of "everyday pragmatism." When we decide what "makes sense" and what doesn't, we use some value set to make that decision. Often, however, people will disagree with our view of what those values should be. To resolve that dispute, we have to enter a debate about why we think this value or that one is important and why another is not. Those debates get more abstract, because "values" are abstract things, and, before you know it, you're doing theory talk.

I think there is a deeper reason for this. I think "theory" arguments do not differ in kind from "practical" arguments. I mean, I understand that some arguments rest more on abstract concepts - concepts, that is, that are more general, more divorced from the physical world - than others. I understand, for example, that an argument about (to use the Paula Jones case as an example) whether allowing a lawsuit against a sitting president will create more trouble for the nation than in solves is more "practical" than asking what "executive power" means and doesn't mean. But that difference doesn't effect how well the argument convinces the listener. Arguments, both "theory" arguments and "practical" arguments, are merely attempts to describe the world in a way that changes our listener's perspective, and thereby convinces her to do something we want her to do. So, to me, both types of arguments ought to be judged on whether or not they are convincing - not whether they are abstract, as the ability to convince is what we're really after.

Now, as a practical matter :), it likely is true that there are many more unconvincing theory arguments out there, than there are unconvincing practical arguments. Too many professor types out there, perhaps. Or perhaps, because theory tries to explain a lot of different things and that's just harder to do. But, I don't think the generalization is nearly tight enough to justify ignoring theory arguments. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think.

So there.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 2:51 PM