Former US President George W. Bush (2-R) waves as he and his wife Laura (R) stand with US President ... [+]
Until the 16th century, it was a fact that the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. Then came Copernicus and his wildly radical idea that the Earth was neither stationary nor the center of the universe. People were uncomfortable. Not only was he asserting a fact was false, but his assertion undermined the importance of Earth and therefore its most powerful species, human beings.
It took 100 years for the Copernican Revolution to gain enough steam for the scientific community to accept his theory. Then, suddenly, what was a scientific fact is not just false but in complete opposition to the truth. The fact is that the Earth is rotating and just another planet.
Does this mean the solar system changed, or did we?
Conceptual Schemes
In the winter of 1973, Paul McCartney and the Wings released Band on the Run, The Exorcist premiered in theaters, and the philosopher Donald Davidson delivered one of the most memorable presidential speeches in the now 101-year history of the American Philosophical Association.
Davidson (1917-2003) was a product of Harvard who held teaching positions at many of the top universities in the United States before finding his home at the University of California, Berkeley. Although this kind of career path—attending a top university en route to a professorship at another top university—is no aberration from many leading philosophical figures, Davidson’s ideas were anything but ordinary.
His 1973 speech-turned-essay titled “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme” challenges the dogma that our reality is relative to how we talk about it. As the title suggests, he does this by disputing the very idea of a conceptual scheme.
Now, what is a conceptual scheme and how does its lack of existence question the idea that our reality is relative to language as such? And what does it mean that reality is relative to language as such?
According to Davidson, conceptual schemes are “ways of organizing experiences;...they are points of view from which individuals, cultures or periods survey the passing scene.”
If this is right, prior to the Copernican Revolution, there was a conceptual scheme in place to understand astronomy. The concept ‘Earth’ meant something (stationary center of the universe) and this concept dictated how we understand everything else about astronomy, and thus how we spoke about it. Then came the Copernican Revolution and our astronomical conceptual scheme changed. ‘Earth’ was an altogether new concept, and the way we understood and spoke about astronomy changed. So, ‘reality itself is relative to a scheme.’ In other words, what is and isn’t a fact is based on our conceptual scheme.
Importantly, for two groups with separate conceptual schemes, explanation is not enough for an understanding discrepancy to be bridged. A 1680 astronomer explaining astronomy to a 1380 astronomer would do no good. As Davidson puts it, “if conceptual schemes differ, so do languages.”
They could both be speaking English. Although the actual word ‘Earth’ is the same, the meaning is not. This is due to their having separate conceptual schemes. However, an Italian speaking astronomer in 1680 would have no problem understanding his contemporary English speaking colleague.
You can translate languages, but not conceptual schemes. Thus, finding some commonality between two groups with differing conceptual schemes is a non-starter as they cannot even begin to understand each other.
Davidson’s goal here is to eliminate the concept of conceptual schemes. Evidently, to continue in a world where we simply assume our conceptual scheme as reality, any real progress in science, philosophy, politics, etc., would replicate the Copernican Revolution and take generations to happen.
Luckily, his solution is rather simple. Davidson tells us that, “whether we like it or not, if we want to understand others, we must count them right in most matters.”
Simple, but quite profound.
Today’s Conceptual Scheme
Whether or not he succeeded in delegitimizing conceptual schemes in the philosophical world remains to be seen, but there is a glaring area in the present-day U.S. where two groups appear to have different conceptual schemes and thus necessarily cannot begin to understand each other.
There are reasons to believe that those who identify as Democrats seem to have an altogether separate conceptual scheme as those who identify as Republicans.
Think about the concept of the ‘2020 presidential election.’ For Democrats, this means a free and fair election in which Joe Biden was duly elected the 46th President of the United States. For a significant number of Republicans, the concept ‘2020 presidential election’ has a totally different meaning, the like of a rigged election that was stolen from Donald Trump. How can an understanding between these groups be reached regarding this past election if the concept ‘2020 presidential election’ is fundamentally different?
Another example of these groups working in two separate conceptual schemes is the concept of ‘racism.’ Many Democrats and left-leaning people view racism as an institutional problem and built into the fabric of the country, whereas conservatives and Republican officials generally believe it is an individual issue. Republican Sen. Tim Scott of North Carolina realizes this about his colleagues and has recently said that they, “still do not believe or realize that [institutional] racism exists, nor understand how much it hurts.”
When there is a lack of agreement over what racism is and where it stems from, the ability to overcome it is clearly hindered. This is exactly what Davidson is talking about. Although the left and right, Democrats and Republicans, are speaking the same language, it appears as though they are working under different conceptual schemes, thus undermining the chance to make any real progress.
But Davidson does have a suggestion. It is time for the two sides of our political aisle to count each other right in most matters, whether we like it or not. By doing this, we will start to overcome our distinct conceptual schemes and disagreements will have a way of being worked out because grounding assumptions will be shared. With different conceptual schemes, this just would not be possible.
Overcoming conceptual schemes is the first step for a better future for our country.
