Pragmatic is a philosophy that believes truth comes from what works in the real world and that you can only know something true by trying it out. For example, if you have an idea that will make your life better, try it out to see how it works in practice before you stick with it. Pragmatism also allows for the possibility that there is no true right or wrong, just different opinions and beliefs that work in certain situations. This is a philosophy that is often difficult to understand and accept by people who are used to sticking with old traditions and proven ways of doing things.
The main tenets of pragmatics focus on the context-dependence of various aspects of linguistic interpretation and communication. These include the notion that meaning is not a property of words or sentences, the theory of ambiguity and indexicality, the theory of speech act, and the concept of conversational implicature. The study of pragmatics can take many forms, including formal and computational; theoretical and applied; game-theoretical, clinical, and experimental; intercultural, interlinguistic, and historical pragmatics.
It is often claimed that pragmatism provides a bridge between semantics and metasemantics. However, this distinction is unhelpful in practical terms because it creates a false dichotomy between the significance that is conventionally attached to words and sentences, on the one hand, and the meanings of those words and sentences in their contexts, on the other. The latter category includes the notion that meaning is predictive (i.e., that it can be worked out based on contextual information).
A key challenge of pragmatics is that it may lack a well-defined set of foundational principles or a coherent ethical framework. This can limit its ability to address complex moral or philosophical questions that require a more comprehensive or principled approach. It also may have a limited emphasis on idealistic aspirations or transformative change, which can be problematic for some contexts.
For example, individuals with pragmatic challenges may have trouble conveying their ideas clearly in the workplace or navigating office politics, leading to a diminished sense of personal and professional growth. In addition, the inability to communicate and collaborate effectively with coworkers can have a direct impact on job performance and financial stability.
Those who advocate pragmatics in research are often focused on maximizing the utility of their studies, rather than on satisfying epistemological or ontological requirements. This approach can help to overcome the challenges of conducting ethnographic research, which requires a level of linguistic and cultural immersion that may be too challenging or time-consuming for some researchers. It can also be a helpful way to balance the needs of a variety of research designs, allowing for a greater degree of flexibility in designing the appropriate study methodology. The pragmatic approach is typically associated with the research design called the randomized controlled trial, or RCT. An example of an RCT embracing pragmatic principles is the EAGLE study, which was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial designed to assess an artificial intelligence-powered tool for early diagnosis of low ejection fraction heart failure.
