Susan Haack | |
|---|---|
 Haack in 2013 | |
| Born | 1945 (age 79–80) England |
| Education | |
| Alma mater | University of Oxford University of Cambridge |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | Contemporary philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Analytic Neopragmatism[1] Foundherentism |
| Main interests | Philosophy of science Philosophy of logic Epistemology Pragmatism |
| Notable ideas | Foundherentism |
Susan Haack (/hæk/; born 1945) is adistinguished professor in the humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, professor of philosophy, and professor of law at theUniversity of Miami inCoral Gables, Florida.
Haack has written onlogic, thephilosophy of language,epistemology, andmetaphysics. Herpragmatism follows that ofCharles Sanders Peirce.
Haack is a graduate of theUniversity of Oxford and theUniversity of Cambridge (B.A., B.Phil., Oxford; Ph.D., Cambridge). She was elected intoPhi Beta Kappa as an honorary member. At Oxford, she studied atSt. Hilda's College, where her first philosophy teacher was Jean Austin, the widow ofJ. L. Austin. As an undergraduate, she tookPolitics, Philosophy and Economics and said of her taste for philosophy: "it was, initially, the 'politics' part that most appealed to me. But somewhere down the line, despite encouragement from my politics tutor to pursue that subject, philosophy took over."[2]
She studiedPlato withGilbert Ryle and logic withMichael Dummett.David Pears supervised her B.Phil. dissertation onambiguity. At Cambridge, she wrote her PhD under the supervision ofTimothy Smiley. She held the positions of Fellow ofNew Hall, Cambridge and professor of philosophy at theUniversity of Warwick before taking her current position at the University of Miami.
Haack has said of her career that she is "very independent":
rather than follow philosophical fads and fashions, I pursue questions I believe are important, and tackle them in the ways that seem most likely to yield results; I am beholden to no clique or citation cartel; I put no stock in the ranking of philosophy graduate programs over which my colleagues obsess; I accept no research or travel funds from my university; I avoid publishing in journals that insist on taking all the rights to my work; etc., etc. Naturally, this independence comes at a price; but it also earns me the freedom to do the best work I can, without self-censorship, and to communicate with a much wider audience than the usual "niche literature" does[2]
Haack's major contribution to philosophy, in the 1993 bookEvidence and Inquiry is herepistemological theory calledfoundherentism,[3][4][5] which is her attempt to avoid the logical problems of both purefoundationalism (which is susceptible to infinite regress) and purecoherentism (which is susceptible to circularity). She illustrates this idea with the metaphor of the crossword puzzle. A highly simplified version of this proceeds as follows: Finding an answer using a clue is analogous to a foundational source (grounded inempirical evidence). Making sure that the interlocking words are mutually sensible is analogous to justification through coherence. Both are necessary components in the justification of knowledge.
Haack has been a fierce critic ofRichard Rorty.[6][7] She wrote a play,We Pragmatists ...:Peirce andRorty in Conversation, consisting entirely of quotes from both philosophers. She performed the role of Peirce. Haack published a vigorous essay[8] in theNew Criterion, taking strong exception to many of Rorty's views, especially his claim to be a sort of pragmatist.
InManifesto of a Passionate Moderate, Haack is highly critical of the view that there is a specifically female perspective on logic and scientific truth and is critical offeminist epistemology. She holds that many feminist critiques of science and philosophy are excessively concerned withpolitical correctness.[9][10]
Haack describes her 2003 bookDefending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, as a defence ofscientific inquiry from the moderate viewpoint. During an interview withD.J. Grothe, then of theCenter for Inquiry, Haack put forward the proposition that those on the far left consider science to be rhetoric motivated by power or politics, and she then proceeds to show how science can, and often does provide real benefits and gains, regardless of what the left may claim. The book offers her theory of scientific inquiry in response to the what she perceives as the narrow logical models of rationality proposed by some other philosophers of science. Haack's opinion on the topic of inquiry, whoever may be undertaking it, is that good evidence, sound methods, transparent review and fitting new discovery into the collective sphere of human knowledge are signs of robust inquiry. Haack claims that quality inquiry can be done by many, however the scientific community has numerous tools or helps that have brought many benefits to mankind, and which help foster science's credibility. These tools and helps may not be available to those engaged in individual inquiry. When asked about how she responds to paranormal or supernatural claims, Haack indicates supporters of such claims have a heavy burden of proof. Rather than labelling such claims as pseudo-science, she admits these things can be "pretty bad stuff" and if they are to be considered seriously, they would need extraordinary evidence, and that such evidence should fit with the best warranted scientific theory about how things are. In this interview Haack also responds to the question of religion's compatibility with science. She agrees there is great tension between the two. While stating her disagreement with British philosopher of religionRichard G. Swinburne andStephen Jay Gould, she referred to the pertinent chapter of her book for a comprehensive understanding of her views on this matter.[11]
In the related chapter ten ofDefending Science, Haack disagrees with Gould's claim that science and religion have their own distinct domains that do not overlap. (SeeNOMA). Haack also disagrees with Swinburne. Haack believes that while scientists, historians and detectives play a useful role in scientific inquiry, theologians do not. Haack shows how religion and science make claims about how the world is. She shows how science and religion also make assertions as to what could lead to a better human condition. By these statements, Haack shows that religion and science do not enjoy their own separate space. She points out areas where prior and current religious claims about the natural universe are strongly refuted by the best warranted findings of science. She also stipulates that controversy and unanswered questions abound in modern science. She summarises her defence for scientific inquiry by stating that she makes no apology for reserving her "greatest admiration for those who delight to exercise the mind, no matter which way it takes them...those for whom doing their damnedest with the mind, no holds barred, is a point of honor".[12]
She has written forFree Inquiry magazine and theCouncil for Secular Humanism. Haack's work has been reviewed and cited in the popular press, such asThe Times Literary Supplement as well as in academic journals.
Haack is an honorary member of Phi Beta Kappa andPhi Kappa Phi, a past President of theCharles S. Peirce Society,[13] and a past member of the US/UK Educational Commission.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
