Origins of Belief
Invalid Methods of Reason
Peirce described several “methods of reason” that don’t
The Method of a priori
We doubt some things because they contradict experience. But for more abstract matters, we may instead just believe what is agreeable to reason (believe whatever sounds plausible).
This makes belief something like taste, and is self-undermining
"[Those who] see that any belief of theirs is determined by any circumstance exgtraneous to the facts, will fromt hat moment...experience a real doubt of it."
So we must search for a method “by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human”. Belief must be fixed by something outside of us, not dependent on our desires.
Logic and Science
Truth of a belief must be determined by practical test, which are suitably external. In later works, Peirce describes the methods as follows:
- From observation, reason abductively to form a hypothesis.
- From hypothesis, reason deductively to draw conclusions.
- From conclusions, reason inductively to confirm them.
Together these three form the habits of logic. An important note about this method is that in principle, they could warrant scrutiny by the scientific method. Logic/science must itself hold up to a non-human test.
Discussion
- Why is striving for truth the only proper way to alleviate doubt?
- How does one know one is using the proper method or guiding principle to reach the truth?
- How does Peirce justify his assumption that there is absolute Truth or Reality? Do you agree?
- Recall Lynch’s discussion of faith and science. Is Peirce basing the right method for the fixation of belief on some kind of faith?