Abstract

In two early and famous papers, “The Fixation of Belief” and “How to Make our Ideas Clear”, devoted to describing the “method of scientific investigation”, we are presented with some of the most basic and problematic features of Peirce’s thought. In the former paper Peirce surveys four ‘methods’ of arriving at beliefs and argues that the scientific method is superior to its alternatives because in it the concept of reality is operative. It alone contains as a “fundamental hypothesis” the belief that there are real things and it alone has the prerogative of bringing about the coincidence of our beliefs and the facts. But curiously enough, the survey introducing these contentions is conducted from a rather different vantage point. For in it Peirce departs from the thesis that we human beings face the problem of replacing disturbing and irritating doubts with beliefs, and appears to argue that because we are social animals the only genuinely effective means of achieving this end is by employing the scientific method. In the latter paper Peirce formulates his maxim for clarifying ideas and proceeds to apply it to the ideas of truth and reality. As a result of this ‘clarification’, the meanings of these ideas are seen to be logically implicated with the methodology of scientific inquiry. In this paper I shall examine Peirce’s views on these obviously questionable points and I will try to show that when properly understood they are not vulnerable to some, at least, of the criticisms brought against them. While the matter cannot be argued here, it is my conviction that the positions we are dealing with are very basic both to Peirce’s philosophy and to any philosophical scheme warranting the label “pragmatism”.