A Critical Examination of Tarski's Argument Against Modal Realism

Modal realism, a philosophical stance posited by David Lewis, asserts that all possible worlds are real and exist in the same way as the actual world. In contrast, Tarski's argument against modal realism is rooted in his critique of the nature of what is real and true. As a precondition, we must understand that realism, whether in its modal form or otherwise, assumes a framework in which what is realized is fundamentally actual and objective. However, Tarski's work challenges this assumption, revealing the inherent limitations of our sensory perceptions and the nature of inter-subjective understanding.

Perceptual Limitations and Inter-Subjective Understanding

According to Tarski, the basis of realism is rooted in our perceptions, which are inherently limited. Our senses provide us with partial and subjective information about the world, and no amount of inter-subjective agreement can compensate for this limitation. Even when multiple people perceive a common reality, the agreement is not a guarantee of its truth. For instance, the belief that the world is flat persisted for thousands of years, yet it was clearly not true. This example underscores Tarski's point that what is realized or understood by people through their perceptions is not necessarily a true representation of reality.

The Concept of Truth and Reality

Tarski's analysis of truth and reality reveals a deeper complexity. In modal realism, truth is often equated with what exists in various possible worlds. However, Tarski's argument suggests that this notion of truth and reality is flawed. The claim that something is real or true must be evaluated based on the limits of our perceptions and the reliability of our inter-subjective understanding. For instance, if an argument or statement is true in a particular possible world, it does not necessarily mean it is true in all possible worlds or in the actual world.

Modal Realism and the Factual Nature of Reality

Modal realism posits that what is true in a possible world is just as factual as what is true in the actual world. Tarski, however, argues that the truth in a possible world is only as true as our understanding of it is accurate. This means that the factual nature of possible worlds is contingent on the accuracy of our perceptions and the reliability of our inter-subjective understanding. If our perceptions and understanding are flawed, then the truth in a possible world may also be flawed.

The Limits of Perception and the Nature of Inter-Subjectivity

Perception and inter-subjective agreement play a critical role in our understanding of reality. However, Tarski's argument against modal realism highlights the limitations of these factors. Perceptions are subjective and can be influenced by various biases and limitations. Inter-subjective agreement, while extensive and widespread, does not guarantee the truth of a particular belief or statement. For instance, thousands of years ago, the belief that the world was flat garnered widespread agreement but was not a true representation of reality.

The Intersection of Philosophy and Science

Philosophically, Tarski's argument against modal realism intersects with scientific methodologies, particularly in the fields of epistemology and cognitive science. The limitations of our sensory perceptions and the fallibility of our inter-subjective understanding point to the need for rigorous scientific inquiry and empirical validation. In science, theories and hypotheses are subject to rigorous testing and falsification, ensuring that our understanding of reality is as accurate and comprehensive as possible.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Tarski's argument against modal realism challenges the fundamental assumptions of what is real and true. By highlighting the limitations of our sensory perceptions and the fallibility of our inter-subjective understanding, Tarski exposes the inherent flaws in modal realism. While realist theories such as modal realism provide a framework for understanding the nature of possible worlds, they do so at the cost of ignoring the limitations of our perceptions and the unreliability of our inter-subjective understanding. A more nuanced and empirically informed understanding of reality is necessary to address these limitations and to develop a more accurate and comprehensive view of the world.

Keywords

Tarski's argument, modal realism, inter-subjective understanding, realism, objective truth