Peirce's Four Methods of Fixing Beliefs (Essay)

If you are interested in Philosophy then I highly recommend reading the works of Charles Sanders Peirce. He discusses four methods of fixed beliefs and how people come across believing in the certain things that they do. I secondly recommend reading the works of Socrates. I find these types of works fascinating. I love learning about their Philosophical views on life.

To start I would like to highlight the four methods of fixed belief that I will be discussing in the following essay that I have written.

Method of Tenacity - If the belief is the nature of habit then shut out and exclude any belief that might cause you to doubt. In other words, if you have a belief this method is used in terms of getting rid of any doubts you may have about what someone believes in. It is based upon evidence that supports the belief and ignoring any other possible conflicting evidence. It means that the person ignores any new evidence that may arise concerning doubt in that belief.

Method of Authority - This method aims to produce beliefs through indoctrination of force most typically. Examples come from the state, parents, religious institutions, teachers, police, the media, and etc. It means that the person who believes in something does it based upon a higher type of authority.

A Priori Method - Belief fixed by unimpeded natural preference or reflection. It is not based upon experimental data. In other words, this type of method demonstrates beliefs that are not fixed by external forces but through natural intelligence or intellect.

Method of Science - The scientific method or the method of science is self-explanatory. Most people understand this method. When people use the method of science to believe in the things that they do it is often through scientific evidence. Beliefs must be proved in the means of science. Science often clashes with faith and the spiritual realm.

These methods can be hard to understand and they all pose some problems within their belief system. Pierce chooses the method of science whereas Socrates cares more about morality. Pierce and Socrates have slightly different views on belief systems but do share some similarities. I will now share my essay on this topic but if you are not familiar with the context I would truly recommend reading The Fixation of Belief by Charles Sanders Pierce and Socrates of Athens: Euthyphro written by Plato.

Here are both documents for you to read if you wish to do so :)

Peirce Fixation of Belief.

Download • 51KB

Socrates and Plato.

Download • 372KB

Ciska Oosthuizen

Philosophy

April 4, 2024

Peirce's Four Methods of Fixing Beliefs

This essay will critically discuss Charles Peirce’s four methods of fixing beliefs. After his methods are looked at, Socrates will challenge his scientific view through his own method of critical thinking. Socrates often opts for more than science. He is concerned with justice, the soul, piety, and deeper questions beyond science. Peirce believes in the scientific method as shown in The Fixation of Belief. The end goal is to demonstrate that all methods should work together to complete a proper fixation of belief instead of working separately.

The first method that Charles Peirce uses to explain how people think critically about their beliefs is the “Method of Tenacity.” As stated in his argument, the first method is demonstrated by shutting out and excluding evidence that may cause doubt to our beliefs. Earlier in Peirce’s journal he states that “The object of reasoning is to find out, from the consideration of what we already know” (Peirce 2). In other words, human beings are going to ignore conflicts with their beliefs because they want to believe in what they already know. If someone is strong about their belief, it will be hard to convince them to change their beliefs despite which method of fixation they use. The one good aspect of this method is that it allows people to refrain from any doubt they may have. It is almost as if they are changing their mindset by using negative thoughts and turning them into positive thoughts. This is often a method used in Psychology. A method of reframing or positive self-talk. However, Peirce explains that the “Method of Tenacity” can lead to deception and inconvenience. In other words, other people may challenge the person holding the belief and society might challenge this method. It is important to think about beliefs critically. The importance of this method allows people to be confident in what they believe. However, ignoring other facts or evidence that is relevant to a belief is not thinking critically. Peirce does not use the “Method of Tenacity” for himself.

The second method Peirce uses is the “Method of Authority.” Authority often stems from a higher “figure” than yourself or a person. Authority figures can be teachers, parents, religious institutions, the media such as social media, or the state. There are other types of authority figures too, including police forces, lawyers, and any other figure of strong authority that instructs more than one person. Peirce argues that this method is not preferred because there is no singular belief that stands together. The authority figures often disagree with one another as stated from the lectures in class. A great example of disagreement among authority figures would be in the religious community. Different religions and beliefs disagree with one another about God. The disagreements can range from “Who is God really?” to “How should we be living our lives for him? What is the right way to live in His eyes?” and so forth. Multiple questions can be asked about God, belief, faith, and religion. They are all different areas, and they have different meanings. Socrates and Plato would be more interested in the “Method of Authority” than the “Scientific Method” that Peirce later proposes. Socrates and Plato would say that critical thinking is beyond scientific, and it is more in the spiritual realm than anything else. They would most likely argue that God provides answers instead of science alone. Authority is superior and it has had many success rates for big groups of people involved with a belief, commonly in religion. The problems that are associated with this method is that it gives rise to doubt because of the lack of agreement between authority figures and it causes rise to doubt because some authority figures could lead their followers astray. An example of bad authority figures would involve leaders equivalent to Adolf Hitler and cult leaders as demonstrated through Klu Klux Klan. These examples are more on the extreme side, but they were reality in the past. In the lecture notes from class, “For the mass of mankind there is perhaps no better method than this. If their highest impulse to be intellectual slaves, then slaves they ought to remain” stating that people tend to let authority figures think for them to a certain extent. They are slaves in that they do not make their own decisions and follow authorities blindly or knowingly. The quote can be interpreted in more than one way. A third problem with the fixation of belief on authority can cause others to believe that they are better than others. This is not always the case, but it does happen. In all the methods there are good attributes and bad attributes.

The third method is called the “Priori Method.” The third method does not use experimental data, not based upon any external aspects. Priori is more about intellect in a person. It is an internal fixation of belief that Peirce came up with. It is based upon reasoning rather than logic itself. The lack of logic is one of the problems that this method possesses. The secondary problem is that it is a too subjective view of beliefs. It is like authority because there is not one fixed agreement. There is always doubt or uncertainty associated with this method. The method relies on the self and the intellect someone possesses. The “Priori Method” is not as common as the rest of the methods that Peirce introduces.

The method that Peirce opts for the most is the “Scientific Method” because it bases belief on physical, external evidence only. It is based on rational agreements. Science is not based on reasoning but more on logic and external evidence. The evidence often supports the hypothesis of a scientific experiment or question, and our human thinking does not affect the results of the evidence presented. The results will remain the same whether we think they will or will not. The biggest problem with scientific evidence is that it cannot provide evidence for anything beyond science. There are multiple aspects of life that science cannot prove. Science cannot provide any answers to deep philosophical questions. Science cannot provide evidence for the meaning of life. That must be acquired through faith and believing in a higher power. Science can make errors and science cannot accurately prove when earth started or how it started without bringing in a higher spiritual being. It is impossible to predict how earth came to be through scientific means because current human beings did not see or experience their own existence in a means. There must be a higher nature or a higher being to take into consideration. The world did not exist purely out of nothing. It cannot appear through a “big bang” because of the evidence promotes problems and lack of full data to prove so. Overall, it is difficult to prove every philosophical question through external evidence and scientific evidence. The last interesting thought about faith in general is that everything in life needs faith but faith does not need anything else in life. For instance, previously mentioned faith in science is needed to believe in the evidence. Faith on the other hand does not need science because faith alone is in some ways stronger than science. It is based upon trust alone whether doubt is present. “Take a leap of faith” as a popular phrase related to extreme trust. Trusting that everything will work out in our favour. Again, criticism against this notion can be said that science does not need faith because of scientific evidence. Faith is an example of higher authority over science. It is beyond the world.

All four methods listed by Peirce are useful in their own ways. While Peirce believes in only the “Scientific Method” he does not consider his errors within the method he uses for his own beliefs. One method cannot be used alone. They must all be used together to create a proper belief. Beliefs cannot be identified in one way alone. Beliefs are complex and personal to everyone. There are similarities between beliefs and differences. Each person has their own train of thought which leads to differing beliefs. Beliefs derive from cultural background, family dynamics, other external and internal factors. Beliefs require external evidence, internal evidence including natural intelligence, learned intelligence, and faith. Critical thinking involves asking a question, discussing, challenging each others’ thoughts, revising, and coming to a solid conclusion about a belief or any other type of topic. It is not meant to be simplistic but complicated and in depth to arise to a higher type of conclusion about an important topic. “The true conclusion would remain true if we had no impulse to accept it; and the false one would remain false, though we could not resist the tendency to believe it” (Peirce 3). Peirce is saying that a fact is a fact whether no one believes it and that a lie essentially is a lie even if everyone believes it. The idea of having the tendency to believe in false or non-false conclusions is an example of human nature. Human beings tend to believe certain things because we simply want to believe in something. Doubt unfortunately, will be inevitable for every belief which is another problem with Peirce’s belief in the “Scientific Method.” Human beings do not yield godly power or great spiritual knowledge, there are limitations. While there are limitations, through combining methods humanity can try to get as close as possible with what they have attained.

An example of the different ways of thinking about beliefs have been demonstrated by Darwin and Lavoisier’s methods among other Philosophers and scientists. All the methods prove that no method alone can be used to justify a singular belief or piece of evidence. Either the methods cannot be used separately or no one method can be used for every type of belief and experiment. Every belief and experiment are unique. “Lavoisier’s method was not to read and pray, but A to dream that some long complicated chemical process would have a certain effect, to put it into practice with dull patience,” in this explanation it shows how he uses dreams and publishes them as facts. He used dreams to manipulate real life scenarios instead of words as stated on page 2 of Peirce’s journal. In this example Lavoisier uses a chemical process supporting the scientific method.

Socrates uses his own method to question beliefs in general. This method has been called the “Socratic Elenchus” where he uses dialogue to argue, ask questions, and answer questions to arrive at a conclusion. His method is based upon critical thinking and questioning. Peirce’s methods are a “pick and choose what applies to you most” situation. He does not challenge beliefs such as Socrates does. Peirce and Socrates go about beliefs in different ways. “It’s because you say that divine sign comes to you occasionally. He has lodged this indictment because of your innovative religious ideas. And he is therefore coming to the court intending to slander you, knowing that such things are easily misrepresented to the many… Even so, they envy all of us who are like this” (Euthyphro 2). Socrates has a spiritual connection whereas someone such as Peirce may not acquire a spiritual connection because he is focussed solely on scientific evidence. The people around Socrates could have envied him because they do not have the knowledge or innovation about morality such as Socrates does. In a way Socrates is superior to those in his time. He was not afraid of standing up for what he thought and believed even if it seemed that he was “crazy.” A lot of readers and critics argue that Socrates was at fault for his own execution due to the way he challenged those around him. Socrates cared greatly about morality and what the gods or God thinks about life.

In conclusion, Peirce is incorrect in privileging the “Scientific Method” over anything else because it cannot account for every kind of evidence of the world. He does not account for his own errors in belief. Science cannot account for the spiritual realm. All methods that lead to belief must be used together and ideas must be challenged. Doubt will be evident no matter the method and faith is needed for every method. All methods have their good attributes and bad attributes, but they can be used together to come as close as possible to finding out the truth of the world.

Works Cited

Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly, November 1877.

Plato. Socrates of Athens: Euthyphro. Oxford World’s Classics, 1997.

Proesell, Dr Dean. Lectures From Class. 2024.