Thursday, November 24, 2005

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.

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll agree that being compared to an ostrich is hardly flattering, but at a time when pomo relativism is fashionable in some circles and a faith-based presidency in others, this now sounds far too simple: 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.

12:02 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

yeah, but, again, I think he's claiming that the MoT, if applied thoroughly, makes the employer of the method impervious to reason. It would be like trying to reason with a monkey or a brick wall. That person, in virtue of adopting that method, has made himself irrational...or at least arational. If someone could do that--completely refuse to listen to reason--then talking to them would make no more sense than talking to an inanimate object.

He's not just saying 'oh, well, that's for them, this is for us.'

Or, if he were, it would be inconsistent with most of the other stuff he says.

12:41 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

As an estimable thinker, Peirce rightly opposes dogma as the enemy of proper inquiry, but sees "musing" about things as a vital part of the human being.

He uses an odd nomenclature, saying God would not be part of "existence," but could be part of "reality," and recommends we spend a mathematically precise 5-6 daily "musing" on it.

This of course is somewhere in the argument for teaching Intelligent Design, that, George Will notwithstanding, wonder is an essential part of science. If Peirce sought a reprochement between science and philosophy, surely wonder and musing are at the start of it.

The astringent skepticism of the modern academy that passes for intellectual honesty is the enemy of wonder, and as Peirce might put it, is inimical to the spirit/mind of man, which without fail hypothesizes a God as it muses on the question "why."

Besides, materialists (physicalists?) are a drag, like the Goths on South Park. Even if musing leads nowhere, it is zidetic, worthy and necessary in its own right. It's good for the soul (whatever that is).

The Peirce stuff is here, and more.

(For some reason, WS, a jog about the internet suggests that the Mormons seem to love Peirce. Spooky.)

(As for the real focus of your post, you just gotta get out in the world a little more. I mean, what could be more dogmatic and apropos of what Peirce is talking about than something called "Talking Points Memo"? Besides, it makes you cranky.)

3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...talking to them would make no more sense than talking to an inanimate object.

Been there, done that,
gave him up as one dead
.

24 Nov 05

7:43 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

I might be dead, but obviously I still haunt you, Dookie.

Love,---Mr. VD

9:34 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Not sure what your point is, Tom. Not sure what the title of Marshall's blog has to do with anything...note, incidentally, that it's the Republicans who made "talking points" an actual--and reprehensible--part of the American political scene. Marshall's blog name seems....well, not very important.

And I'm not sure how my getting out more would help. I probably "get out" entirely too much, in case you're really worried about that...

Peirce's points about musing on God (and, yes, he draws a distinction--not odd at all but, rather, perfectly clear--between existence and reality) aren't really about anything that would pass for the Christian God so far as I can tell. And I'm familiar with his points, incidentally, and have no need to look up on the internets. And they seem fine to me. he's way smarter than me, and I take them seriously. Pondering the possibility of something mind-like in the universe is reasonable. Pondering the possibility that a magic man came to Earth 2000 years ago to suck up all our sins...well, that's a different matter entirely.

He'd have no truck with teaching creationism as science, though. Read him more extensively and that should become clear to you. In fact, he'd probably laugh his ass off at the suggestion.

I wonder, am I misreading your tone here, or did something about this post anger you? I'm puzzled.

2:54 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

No, not angry at all. And no, there wouldn't be anything about the Abrahamic God that would be derivable by science. And if by creationism you mean the six-days- and-resting thing, you might as well believe in Peter Pan.

I was inspired by your post to do a little reading up on Peirce, and shared what I found. His spirit of inquiry was more open-minded than the skepticism that I detect in today's academy is all, and found that worthy of remark.

It is best not to take me too literally about things, or to take me not literally enough. TPM does make you crabby. :-)

3:14 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Gotcha. Good.

Yeah, CSP is an almost unimaginably interesting guy. Weird that the Mormons would be interested in him...that's something I'd never heard before. They DO seem to have some excessive reverence for America...wonder whether that could explain it?

And, yeah, I think CSP can provide some help to combat the PoMo dime-store skepticism and relativism that continue to fester in the academy. But most of the folks who still buy into that stuff are not going to have the time, patience, or intellectual horsepower to understand somebody like Peirce.

Remember: PoMo is philosophy for people without the intellectual chops to do philosophy. Fortunately I think it's kind of dying out.

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winnie, you're pathetic.

5:15 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Alas.

11:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home