One of epistemology's assumptions is that knowledge provides a normative constraint that defines action or behavior. As reliant social animals, assertion plays a critical part in information sharing. Several theorists have made good efforts to investigate the definition of assertion and its contribution to epistemology. In this regard, three major scholars stand out: Williamson, Wright, and Lacky.
In the philosophy of language, assertion has played a crucial role. This is because they are thought to play a significant influence in linguistic meaning. In general, something that may be said can then be believed. Among Williamson, Wright, and Lacky, Williamson seems to do the best research in exploring assertion and showing its influence and contribution to philosophy.
Tenets of Williamson’s Theory of Normative Assertion
There are several tenets that defines Williamson’s theory of assertion. To start with, assertion is known to carry factual information, can be well-phrased, insincere, irrelevant, polite, informative, and sincere.
Williamson formulates a hypothesis which can be used to carry out an empirical investigation of a hypothesis. He says thus (490),
One way to find out is by supposing that it has such rules, in order to see where the hypothesis leads and what it explains.
Williamson explains the correlation between the constitutive rule and the constitutive act. He gives a comparison to playing a game- if one breaks a rule or two of a game, one can still continue playing the game. At the same time, the fact that one has spoken broken English does not negate the fact that one is speaking English.
Williamson argues that when one makes the wrong assertion, he or she is vulnerable to moral criticism. This is because the person has transferred false moral beliefs or even betrayed the audience. However, a complication that comes with this assumption is that truth is relative. What is true in one context may not be necessarily true in another context. For example, cultural variance comes with diversity in what may be termed as true.
It should be noted that Williamson makes a defense of the importance of assertion; however, his premises are in no way modal. His line of thinking is aligned to the knowledge rule. The consequence is that this rule acts as the default rule that evaluates an utterance of a declarative sentence.
The Rule of Assertion
The N-theories of assertion (where Williamson belongs) argues that for one to make an assertion, he must start by saying a claim. For instance, for one to assert that in Sweden, there exists naked rat moles. One has to start by saying the same. However, a critical issue that arises therein are the norms that do govern the sayings (Brown and Cappelen, 28). This is much of debate depending on the two schools of thought- No and Pro assertion theorists.
Having stated that, Williamson gives two main rules of assertion. To start with, he says that assertion has constitutive rules. Here, the term constitutive means that the rule is essential to that particular act. In other words, the rule defines how the performance of the act will take course, any time that it is performed.
Second, the said constitutive rule assumes the C rule. By extension, the C rule takes various forms. For one to make an assertion, that assertion has to emanate from the truth. In addition to that, the warrant rule says that one can only make an assertion after having a warrant on the same. Another rule is that one can only make an assertion after having a knowledge about it (the knowledge rule). The BK rule holds that fo one to make an assertion, he or she must believe in it. Lastly, the RBK rule states that an assertion is made after making a rational decision that one knows what he is saying.
Much as Williamson takes an analogy of a game, Brown and Cappelen (31), argue that assertion cannot follow the rules of a game. However, if one was to follow the truth, then one cannot make a false assertion. In connection to this, one can still make faults in a game, but still play the game, with penalties of course.
If one was to follow the warrant rule, then one cannot make an assertion which is unwarranted. For instance, a true assertion which is based on a lucky guess will comfortably fulfill the truth rule but it is not going to fulfill the warrant rule. The scholar who made an emphasis on the warrant rule was Dewey who made a combination of antirealism with warranted assertability. This is connected to the revised maxim of quality which states thus, “say only that which you know.” In this quote, the word say could also be interpreted as assert.
In philosophy, there are other ways to truth- and assertion is not the only one. Despite that, the truth account is quick to note that the truth rule is individuating. In connection to this, it is good for one to swear what is true, and bad to swear what is false. It should be noted that all asserting qualifies as swearing but not all swearing qualifies as asserting.
The rule of assertion is also evidential. In other words, making an assertion after gathering enough evidence plays a critical role in justifying the assertion. In connection to this, the issue of being honest and pursuing the truth is not only plausible but also a matter that requires considerable seriousness. In fact, from a philosophical angle, an assertion which is not true passes as a crime. Again, making a false assertion can be compared to stepping on someone’s toe, and the guilt that follows that therein.
One of the greatest challenges facing evidence is that it can be overly misleading (Williamson 507). It is possible for one to make a reasoned belief which is false. A common claim is that it only knowledge which is supposed to warrant assertion. Similarly, urgency can prompt one to make an assertion. For example, when one is practicing a foreign language, urgency may lead to grammatical errors.
At the same time, one may not be able to differentiate between the actual reality and the reality that one should know. It is good that one asserts the truth, and it is bad that one asserts what is false (Williamson 494). It is very important to note that one needs assertion in order to make an effective transmission of knowledge. When there is effective communication, then one can exploit the power of assertion in order to make a claim. Similarly, when one becomes obedient to a certain command, the issue of responsibility comes into play. There is a causal relationship between hearing the command and obedience. Suppose one is commanded to stop, does not hear the command, but stops all the same, then he has not obeyed the command although he has stopped.
Issues of Assertion
According to Williamson (488), assertion, as a philosophical discourse, has been blamed for various limitations. It has been found to be not only uninformative but also false. In some instances, they have been termed as rude, insincere, irrelevant, and unwarranted. This has questioned the extent of the relevance of assertion when it comes to philosophy and how such challenges can be overcome.
Williamson explains another issue of the truth rule through using the lottery example. The truth rule is not in a position to make certain assertions. In normal circumstances, only one person emerges the winner in a lottery. It would therefore be true to tell a lottery ticket holder that his or her ticket is not going to win. However, the truth rule does not allow the same.
A combination of the knowledge truth and the plausible form will argue that however slim the chances of winning are, one could still win the lottery. In other words, all the lottery ticket holders have an opportunity to win the lottery. From rational thinking, one can go ahead to buy a lottery ticket if he or she finds that there is a fair chance of winning. At the same time, one cannot buy the lottery ticket if one holds that there is absolutely no chance of winning in the competition.
Therefore, one playing the lottery does not believe that the ticket has no chance of winning. On the contrary, one believes that the ticket has a small chance of winning. By stating that the lottery ticket will not win, then there is something that is very wrong with the concept of assertion. It would be foolhardy for one to make a step of participating in a lottery when there is no chance whatsoever of winning.
There is a big challenge to assertion- asking a person how he or she arrived at that particular assertion. If the person fails to know the same, then the person needs more evidence in order to make such a claim. For example, if a student makes a certain claim in a classroom, then the lecturer may ask the student where he read about that. Similarly, the best scholars appreciate the work of others either as a point of reference or a point of comparison. At the same time, the best thesis or dissertation heavily relies on a comprehensive literature review that looks at similar works and the deficit therein.
One is not able to alter meaning through slight changes in use. In addition to that, Williamson early research was faced by one main question- words such as heap have extensions but one cannot know about the extensions. Such contradictions and deficiencies in meaning laid a strong background to further research from Williamson and he was able to come up with a well-grounded theory over the course of time.
Conclusion
Like any other theory, Williamson’s theory of normative assertion is vulnerable to controversy and criticism. In fact, some scholars have been reluctant to endorse the particular theories. However, this does not negate the fact that Williamson has done an impeccable job in contributing to the theories of assertion. Overall, Williamson’s theory of normative assertion carries a lot of weight and is a credible source of reference in philosophy.
References
Brown, Jessica. Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Print.
Williamson, Timothy. "Knowing and asserting." The Philosophical Review 105.4 (1996): 489-
523.
Williamson, Timothy. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2002.
