An Epistemology For Extremists

C. S. Peirce on "The Method of Tenacity":

"If the settlement of opinion is the sole object of inquiry, and if belief is of the nature of a habit, why should we not attain the desired end, by taking as answer to a question any we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it? This simple and direct method is really pursued by many men. I remember once being entreated not to read a certain newspaper lest it might change my opinion upon free-trade. "Lest I might be entrapped by its fallacies and misstatements," was the form of expression. "You are not," my friend said, "a special student of political economy. You might, therefore, easily be deceived by fallacious arguments upon the subject. You might, then, if you read this paper, be led to believe in protection. But you admit that free-trade is the true doctrine; and you do not wish to believe what is not true." I have often known this system to be deliberately adopted. Still oftener, the instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague dread of doubt, makes men cling spasmodically to the views they already take. The man feels that, if he only holds to his belief without wavering, it will be entirely satisfactory. Nor can it be denied that a steady and immovable faith yields great peace of mind. It may, indeed, give rise to inconveniences, as if a man should resolutely continue to believe that fire would not burn him, or that he would be eternally damned if he received his ingesta otherwise than through a stomach-pump. But then the man who adopts this method will not allow that its inconveniences are greater than its advantages. He will say, "I hold steadfastly to the truth, and the truth is always wholesome." And in many cases it may very well be that the pleasure he derives from his calm faith overbalances any inconveniences resulting from its deceptive character. Thus, if it be true that death is annihilation, then the man who believes that he will certainly go straight to heaven when he dies, provided he have fulfilled certain simple observances in this life, has a cheap pleasure which will not be followed by the least disappointment. A similar consideration seems to have weight with many persons in religious topics, for we frequently hear it said, "Oh, I could not believe so-and-so, because I should be wretched if I did." When an ostrich buries its head in the sand as danger approaches, it very likely takes the happiest course. It hides the danger, and then calmly says there is no danger; and, if it feels perfectly sure there is none, why should it raise its head to see? A man may go through life, systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change in his opinions, and if he only succeeds -- basing his method, as he does, on two fundamental psychological laws -- I do not see what can be said against his doing so. It would be an egotistical impertinence to object that his procedure is irrational, for that only amounts to saying that his method of settling belief is not ours. He does not propose to himself to be rational, and, indeed, will often talk with scorn of man's weak and illusive reason. So let him think as he pleases."

Note: That last part's actually tricky. He apparently doesn't really think that there's nothing that can be said against such a person. Rather, he's apparently using this in some kind of Kantian appeal to the reader to get him to see the loathsomeness of this method and to contrast it with the nobility of the "Method of Science" (i.e. that of looking at the actual evidence and allowing our beliefs to be formed by it.) Maybe he's also thinking: to try to reason with a person who really adopted the method of tenacity would be like trying to teach a pig to sing. Or, rather, like teaching a pig logic. It just wouldn't be on. But that's not an indictment of logic, but of pigs, if you get my meaning. A person can only be coaxed out of the method of tenacity if he has some latent inclination to accept evidence and reasoning.

Peirce is a weird guy. So much of what he writes makes him sound like a raving, bone-headed meat-axe empiricist, when in fact he's actually a mind-bogglingly subtle and unusual kind of empiricist proposing a logic of science based on Kantian deontological ethics. When I first started reading Peirce I thought he was the worst philosopher I'd ever read. Now I suspect he may be the best.