Pragmatic is a result-oriented approach to solving problems. The goal of pragmatism is to create practical solutions that work in real-life situations. The word pragmatic is often used to describe political positions or actions that are considered reasonable and realistic. However, the term has a much broader meaning in the field of philosophy. The philosophy of pragmatism focuses on the concept of reality and how we perceive it. It also includes the idea that our knowledge is limited and fallible. This means that pragmatism is not anti-skepticism, but rather a compromise between anti-skepticism and fallibilism.
One of the most famous figures in the history of pragmatism was John Dewey (1859-1952), who had a major influence on American intellectual life for a half-century. Dewey had many followers and imitators, but by the 1940s pragmatism had lost a great deal of momentum. This was due in part to the arrival of a self-consciously rigorous import, analytic philosophy.
Nevertheless, pragmatism continued to exist as a philosophical outlook. For example, it was embodied in the work of the philosopher William James and in the work of his student C. S. Peirce. It was also incorporated into the work of Peirce’s student Charles Royce and into the writings of the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead.
In recent decades, a new generation of philosophers has revived interest in pragmatism. Some of these philosophers have created a new form of the philosophy, which they call constructive pragmatism. This version of pragmatism is characterized by the idea that the truth of a theory can be judged by its practical results. This is the opposite of traditional empiricism, which judges theories based on their ability to explain facts.
Other pragmatists, such as Sellars, Rorty, Davidson and Putnam, have developed an approach to pragmatics that they call near-side pragmatics. This is a version of pragmatics that focuses on the linguistic and psychological processes involved in utterance interpretation. Near-side pragmatics includes resolving ambiguity and vagueness, the reference of proper names, indexicals and demonstratives, and at least some issues involving presupposition.
Some pragmatists have also taken up the question of whether or not scientific theories should be tested by direct experience or by a combination of indirect experiences and inferences. They have concluded that direct experiences cannot serve as a basis for science because experience is always theory-laden, and this is especially true when we are dealing with a complex subject like the universe. In addition, all human knowledge is necessarily partial and limited, and this fact should not lead us to a global skeptical attitude or even a moderate scientific skepticism.