Chance, Love, and Logic: Philosophical EssaysPeirce, Charles S. (Charles Sanders)
Philosophy
Chance, Love, and Logic: Philosophical Essays
Peirce, Charles S. (Charles Sanders)
Metaphysics; Peirce, Charles S. (Charles Sanders), 1839-1914 -- Bibliography; Pragmatism; Science -- Philosophy
living doubt upon the subject, let him consider it.
To describe the method of scientific investigation is the object of this
series of papers. At present I have only room to notice some points of
contrast between it and other methods of fixing belief.
This is the only one of the four methods which presents any distinction
of a right and a wrong way. If I adopt the method of tenacity and shut
myself out from all influences, whatever I think necessary to doing this
is necessary according to that method. So with the method of authority:
the state may try to put down heresy by means which, from a scientific
point of view, seems very ill-calculated to accomplish its purposes; but
the only test _on that method_ is what the state thinks, so that it
cannot pursue the method wrongly. So with the _a priori_ method. The
very essence of it is to think as one is inclined to think. All
metaphysicians will be sure to do that, however they may be inclined to
judge each other to be perversely wrong. The Hegelian system recognizes
every natural tendency of thought as logical, although it is certain to
be abolished by counter-tendencies. Hegel thinks there is a regular
system in the succession of these tendencies, in consequence of which,
after drifting one way and the other for a long time, opinion will at
last go right. And it is true that metaphysicians get the right ideas at
last; Hegel’s system of Nature represents tolerably the science of that
day; and one may be sure that whatever scientific investigation has put
out of doubt will presently receive _a priori_ demonstration on the part
of the metaphysicians. But with the scientific method the case is
different. I may start with known and observed facts to proceed to the
unknown; and yet the rules which I follow in doing so may not be such as
investigation would approve. The test of whether I am truly following
the method is not an immediate appeal to my feelings and purposes, but,
on the contrary, itself involves the application of the method. Hence it
is that bad reasoning as well as good reasoning is possible; and this
fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account