In the last article we discussed the branch pf philosophy, Pragmaticism. Outlining its origins in the USA and it’s focus on the use of philosophy to achieve practical results, it placed a strong emphasis on our experience of the world, and not just our ability to discuss the world in logically precise but abstract ways.
We mentioned the work of Pierce (Hookway, 1997) and how he advocated the use of the scientific method to improve our effective engagement with the world. This perspective was critiqued by James (1975) who observed that the senses, and our intuitions, should play an equal role in determining pragmatic action. For James, we build up experience and create tacit models of the world which effectively guide our actions in a variety of situations. James’s critique is widely accepted by many leading thinkers (Whitehead, 2010, McGilchrist, 2019, Thompson, 2014 for example) but it’s worth examining the sound logic behind Pierce’s approach.
Pierce (1997) observed that beliefs should be guides to action, not just abstract theory. If a belief effectively guides practice, then it is sustained. However, if the belief at some point fails to guide effective action, it stops working, for reasons such as a feature of the environment has changed, then beliefs are thrown into doubt. At this point Peirce observed that the person faced with doubt needs to change their existing way of looking at a situation and correspondingly change how they do things to produce a new effective approach.
Pierce identified four ways in which beliefs become fixed
Tenacity- a person refused to let go of a belief. This may be akin to our more contemporary understanding of the confirmation bias
Authority- someone or some entity with authority refuses to give up a belief, and a person is compelled to follow it
A priori- a belief is based purely on reason, a logically consistent and plausible argument but it has not been practically evaluated.
Experimentally- a belief has been rigorously tested and evaluated in practice, following a scientific approach. The experimental method was carried out in public consultation so potential errors made in arriving at beliefs could be more easily identified by a community of observers and then further testedverified. This was Pierce’s preferred approach (Pierce, 1997).
Pierce was clearly concerned with beliefs being attuned to our concrete experience of the world and not being hijacked by stubbornness, influence and untested but well-articulated theory. James’s (1981) identified that the senses also provide us with essential feedback on experience of the world and the effectiveness of our beliefs; we do not have to scientifically test our beliefs and subject them to peer review to be effective.
However, Pierce’s point still stands, it is very easy to become seduced by the aesthetic qualities of belief, particularly if they are generated by authority. It can then become even harder to let them go as we cling to existing beliefs for false comfort. Remaining vigilant to the applicability of our beliefs and not taking their value for granted may not need to be carried out scientifically but it does need to be done. On this point, Peirce’s foundations of pragmaticism are still significant and relevant.
Reading
Pierce, CS (1997) Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: the 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism by Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by Patricia Ann Turrisi, State University of New York Press, Albany, New York.
Hookway, C.J., (1997) “Logical Principles and Philosophical Attitudes: Peirce’s Response to James’s Pragmatism” in R.A. Putnam (ed.),
James, W (1975). Pragmatism: A New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
James, W., (1981). The Principles of Psychology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dewey, J., (1999). The Essential Dewey (two volumes edited by Hickman, L. and Alexander, T.), Bloomington: Indiana University Press
McGilchrist, I. (2019) The Master and his Emissary. The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press; Expanded Edition.
Thompson, E (2014) Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Harvard University Press.
Whitehead, A.N., (2010) Process and reality. Simon and Schuster
