This amateur "philosopher" thinks that bad "inference" makes for bad "judgment"

 

This week I received an email as a reminder of an upcoming online discussion of a topic hosted by a philosophy professor, with graduate students and other “friends” of the University of Tennessee’s Philosophy Department invited to participate. I’m not sure what I did to qualify; I think I might have taken one philosophy course when I was there, but more likely it was because eons ago, for some inexplicable reason, I donated a couple bucks to the department. I was informed that this discussion would examine how

In previously unnoticed remarks that span four decades, Kant consistently classifies inference as an act of judgment. I explain why Kant originally held this view and then examine what this implies about his account of the nature of judgment. I present evidence for a surprising implication: namely, that, for Kant, an act of judgment necessarily coincides with other, inferentially-related acts of judgment.

I confess I am completely out of my depth there; what I know about Immanuel Kant is that one, he is considered one of the most influential enlightenment philosophers and moralists, and two, he was proof positive that the philosophers of his time should not have ventured into the bizarro world of 18^th century anthropology, lest one have a stain on their reputation, and be accused of being one of the “founding fathers” of scientific racism, eugenics and where all that led to. 

As to the proposition, I can throw out there what I "think" it means. Let’s use as an example making the “judgment” that a person is going to be late for work or an appointment by an “inference” based on the evidence of running down a sidewalk in work clothes, with a bus stop nearby, and bus is pulling up to the stop. We don’t know it for certain, but we can make that judgment based on what the observation “infers.” Of course if the “judgment” is correct, from there we can “infer” other judgments—like the probability of missing a phone call, missing a meeting, not getting work done on time, having a talk with a supervisor, and getting fired. These are all technically different facts, but can be “inferred” to be interrelated and “coincide” with another “judgment,” that something “not good” will happen when one is late for work or misses a bus. Can’t you tell I know what the hell I’m talking about?

But there is also another way of approaching “inference as an act judgment,” since it seems to me that “inference” and “judgment” are often used interchangeably, depending upon how they are deployed, but do in certain contexts refer to different things, and sometimes can be entirely at odds with one another. “Inference” is making an observation of given evidence, and making an “educated” assumption about its meaning.  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “judgment” is “the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing; an opinion or estimate so formed.” But it can also mean “the capacity for judging” and “a proposition stating something believed or asserted”—meaning something that may in fact be based on faulty “inference.”

Let’s whittle down the previous example: A white man is running down the sidewalk in casual work attire. The “inference” is that he is “probably” late for work or trying to catch a bus—the point being that he is going to a place. No one really gives it much thought, unless he knocks someone over; “judgment” only comes into play if someone is required to “explain” why think they this, but generally it is just “assumed,” without need to justify the belief. It is “natural” behavior for someone who is trying to get to a place in a hurry.

But change just one word in that equation and not only is there a different “inference,” but that a “judgment” is made becomes more obvious. What if the man who is seen running is black or Hispanic? Unlike the white man, who is assumed is running to a place, some people would make the “inference” that they are running away from a place, because of the assumption that these people only act in this way after the commission of some unlawful act. It is not “natural,” given the usual stereotypes, that they may actually be running because they are late for work or to catch a bus. The person in question may in a particular case be in fact doing what the onlooker assumes (as the white man could be doing as well), but such "inferences" are in most cases still wrong.

This is where “judgment” does come into play. Making completely different “inferences” of the same act and evidence leads to making a “judgment” not on the act but on the person doing the acting. I don’t know if that makes any sense, but what I do know is that people often make “judgments” that are based on faulty “interpretation” of the object of “inference.”