# Explain pragmatism

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-pragmatism/176326>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [May 20, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-pragmatism/176326 "2003-05-20T11:33:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![deball](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@deball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deball)\
**Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-pragmatism/176326/1 "2003-05-20T11:33:05Z")

</div>

I was reading _The Bushwhacked Piano_ by Tom McGuane the other day and a character notes how the only things relevant to his current life that he learned in college were pipe smoking and pragmatism.

This got me wondering if I really understood pragmatism. I’ve read some James, but honestly, philisophical texts are pure Sominex to me. Like most people, I grasp the _basics_ better when they are put into a situation, like _The Stranger_ and existentialism.

So, can someone give me the basic lowdown on pragmatism in non-headachey terms?

This is not a plea for homework. Somehow I already finished college without mastering the world’s philosophies! 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\
**Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-pragmatism/176326/2 "2003-05-20T12:55:36Z")

</div>

Well, I was going to link to some James, but you say you’ve read some… Yet, I don’t think you can get much less non-headachy when it comes to philosophy.

> [@](#):
>
> The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable. Is the world one or many? -fated or free? - material or spiritual? -here are notions either of which may or may not hold good of the world; and disputes over such notions are unending. The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other’s being right.

I suggest you read the whole thing if you haven’t: [James’ “What Pragmatism Means”.](http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/james/James_1907/James_1907_02.html)

Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that we’re having an argument about the melting point of water. You claim ice melts at 273.15 K and I claim that you’re wrong, it’s 285.3 K. Everyone, regardless of their philosophical standpoint will, after a modicum of research, declare that you’re right and I’m wrong. The _reason_ a pragmatist will provide is that claiming that ice melts at 285.3 K has _practical_ negative consequences. Essentially, the statement is false because it prohibits you from making accurate predictions about when ice turns into liquid water.

Now that seems pretty obvious when applied to hard science, but I have found this approach extremely useful (ha!) when approaching moral, religious, political or metaphysical dilemnas.