Establishing a belief
The definition of a conviction ( The Fixation of Belief ) is an essay by the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce .
It is an early treatise by Peirce on his pragmatism, which he later renamed " pragmatism " to distinguish it from a similar direction that emerged from it . Its main content is the principle of doubt and convictions, adopted from Alexander Bain , which determine the actions of people. This principle was closely related to Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim.
The article can be found in the journal Popular Science Monthly (12/1877, pp. 1-15) and is the first part of a six-part series of articles published from 1877 to 1888 under the title Illustrations of the Logic of Science .
I. section
Peirce begins with a brief history of inference , a theme of logic :
The scholastic has been limited to a certain type of reasoning, namely the deduction (CP 5.358). By deduction, however, one arrives at nothing new that is not already given in the premises of the conclusion . These unquestioned premises provided the authority of religion. Roger Bacon contradicted this principle of authority and recognized that rather "experience alone teaches us everything" (CP 5.360). Francis Bacon clarified the concept of experience established by Roger Bacon by excluding things like "inner enlightenment" from it. According to him, experience is something that has to be open to repeated testing (5.361). Finally, early modern scientists were already using methods that modern logicians would also use. Johannes Kepler relies on numbers and their evaluation to find out which planetary curve corresponds to the facts (CP 5.362). The section concludes with examples of Peirce's assertion that every great advance in science was also a lesson in logic, an advancement in the art of thinking.
Section II
Peirce describes here as the goal of reasoning: "by contemplating what we already know to find out something that we do not know" (CP 5.365). The validity of a conclusion depends (not so much on human thinking, but more) on the premises, the facts of the conclusion. True premises yield a true conclusion. Whether an individual is comfortable with a conclusion or not changes nothing in its truth or falsehood (5.365). Man is a logical thinking being, but he is not completely so. For example, he's more optimistic than logic would warrant. Experience limits his optimism, but rarely eradicates it. Peirce adds that, with regard to practical matters, logic is better, and when it comes to non-practical matters, it is serene fantasy (5.366).
There is (constitutional or acquired) a mode of behavior of the mind . This determines us to draw one conclusion rather than another from given premises (facts). It is positive when (in general, not in the special case) it draws true conclusions from true premises; otherwise it is “not positive” (CP 5.367). A special behavior of the mind that regulates this or that particular conclusion can be formulated in one sentence: This sentence is called the guiding principle of an inference. The truth of a guiding principle rests on the validity of the conclusions which it determines. Peirce gives an example: one observes that a rotating copper disk quickly comes to a standstill if it is brought between the poles of a magnet. Now one can correctly conclude that this will happen with every copper disk. The guiding principle is: "What is true for this one piece of copper is true for everyone". A wrong guiding principle would be: "What applies to this piece of copper also applies to all metals, eg brass" (CP 5.367). There are now a great many guiding principles of reasoning. Writing them down would be of no use for practical routine or everyday work, since everyday work is known once and for all through learning a trade. Writing down or studying the guiding principles of reasoning is, however, useful in unfamiliar areas, as well as in areas where the results cannot be constantly controlled by experience (meaning areas such as technology, etc.) (CP 5.368).
Facts can serve as a guiding principle. There are two different types of this: those that “are absolutely necessary as a guiding principle” (basic logical assumptions) and, secondly, facts that “do not necessarily have to be taken for granted ... when one asks the logical question”. The first facts are given with thought and the logical process itself. False conclusions cannot follow from such correct premises (CP 5.369).
III. section
Peirce distinguishes between two sensations: doubt and conviction (CP 5.370). They differ in three ways:
- We doubt, then we ask questions , we are convinced, then we pronounce judgments .
- In practice , belief guides our actions , doubt cannot. (The assassins, for example, have plunged themselves to their deaths out of the conviction that this will assure them eternal happiness and without a doubt). Being convinced is thus a sign of a behavioral habit that we have adopted and that will determine our actions (CP 5.371).
- Doubt drives us . It's uncomfortable and unsatisfactory. If we doubt, we try to reach the state of conviction. Belief is a calm, satisfied state that one does not want to give up (not even for other beliefs). We cling to our beliefs and to what we are convinced of (CP 5.372).
So both have positive effects: being convinced enables us to act , doubt stimulates research (CP 5.373). Beliefs are best when they guide our actions in such a way that they satisfy our desires (we reject beliefs that do not have this result) (CP 5.375).
IV. Section
The effort to overcome doubt and to reach a conviction is what Peirce calls research (CP 5.374). Peirce now defines the goal of research . An inner struggle begins with doubt, and ends with its cessation. The only goal of research is to establish an opinion, a belief . To our satisfaction, any opinion is often sufficient; it does not have to be a true opinion (CP 5.375).
Peirce warns of three erroneous ideas about research (CP 5.376):
- Some philosophers advise, to begin research, simply ask some question. But simply putting a sentence in interrogative form does not in any way stimulate striving for a conviction - there must be a real, living doubt.
- Many believe that proof must be based on ultimate, absolute, unquestionable propositions. Depending on the school, these are: primary principles of a general nature or primary sensory perceptions. But if research wants to prove it, according to Peirce, it only has to begin with sentences that are completely free of doubt.
- Many people argue for points that everyone has long been convinced of. But when the doubt disappears, according to Peirce, there is no point in research.
V. section
As already seen, one behaves either doubtful or convinced. If one is in doubt, there are, according to Peirce, four different methods of establishing a belief :
The method of perseverance
One can simply answer a question with any answer and then insist on that answer and everything that follows from it all of one's life. In this way you have established a belief for yourself. People who use this simple and straightforward method to establish their beliefs often react to opposing opinions with hatred and disgust. While it is always nice to have a belief, there are other downsides to that kind of belief. It can easily lead to inconvenience when it is wrong. For example, one might believe that a fire does not burn. But as long as the pleasure that arises from conviction outweighs the inconveniences, the inconveniences do not disturb the believer either. Persevering bring everything out of sight. Peirce draws an amusing comparison: when there is danger the ostrich bears its head in the sand, it is happy, there is no longer any danger. So why should he raise his head? In spite of everything, it would be presumptuous to criticize this approach, this method, a belief, as unreasonable just because one does not use it oneself. Incidentally, according to Peirce, a believer does not want to be sensible, rational, but will probably even despise reason (CP 5.377).
- Criticism of the method of perseverance
The method of perseverance will not prevail in practice because it is opposed to the drive to society. If I have adopted an opinion, I will find that other people think differently from me. And in a reasonable moment, I will see that these strange views are as good as my own. Because we influence one another's views, trust in such a firmly established belief is easily shaken. We now have the problem of how to establish a belief not just in an individual but in the community (CP 5.378).
The method of authority
It was mainly used in the philosophy of scholasticism (see above). One can distinguish the method of authority from the method of perseverance in such a way that the opinion one insists on comes from outside, from society, not from oneself. You obey, and do so with conviction.
If the state acts instead of the individual, an institution must be created that teaches and instills the right doctrines on the people and eliminates opposing doctrines. People have to believe the institution and respond best to private (independent) and unusual (deviant) views with hatred. People who think differently are silenced with terror, inquisition, killings, blood baths or the angry people. If one does not have the power to do this, one makes a list of views which believing subjects must adopt. The method of authority has been the means of upholding theological and political teachings from the earliest times. It was instituted by the priesthood of the respective religion as well as by the respective aristocracy, the guilds or any other association of a class. They all have a certain social feeling in common. And all of them almost always resulted in atrocities. The official of such a society carries out, he does not feel entitled to sacrifice the interests of the society out of compassion or private interests. In a regime, sympathy and the spirit of camaraderie can also produce a most ruthless tyranny (CP 5.379).
The method of authority has advantages over that of perseverance: it is spiritually and morally superior; its success is greater (it achieves majestic results, e.g. stone masses) and often very long-term (sometimes thousands of years, otherwise only geological epochs are). Peirce even ponders whether this method is perhaps the best method for the mass of humanity and writes: "If the strongest urge of men is to be intellectual slaves, then they should remain slaves" (CP 5.380).
- Criticism of the method of authority
No institution can regulate everything, there always remains an imperfection that can one day break open. There will then be a few individuals who climb one level higher. With a more far-sighted look, they will see that people in other countries and in other ages have adhered to completely different teachings than their own. So someone will then regard it as a coincidence that he has just been instructed in his conviction and will attribute that to the social conditions. In comparing the different beliefs, doubts arise (CP 5.381). What follows is that now all beliefs that spring from one's whim or are created by opinion makers are being questioned. One will no longer insist on one conviction and one will no longer allow one to be forced upon oneself. One will look for a new method that can decide which sentence to be convinced of.
The a priori method
It was introduced into philosophy by Descartes , and Peirce gives metaphysics as the most perfect example. Systems created with the a priori method are usually not based on observed facts. Its most fundamental propositions were accepted because they seemed "reasonably acceptable", instead of building on experience, one builds on what one is inclined to be convinced of. “Finally, the essence of the a priori method is to think as one is inclined to think” (CP 5.385). One finds this (e.g. Plato's image of the sky), the other that (Kepler's image of the sky) more convenient to his reason. Since different views easily clash in this way, one agrees on much more general preferences (e.g. on egoism, i.e. on the fact that the person acts in order to obtain pleasure). These more general (less content) convictions, which are acceptable to the common sense, are also not based on a single fact, but (e.g. egoism) are accepted as the only reasonable theory (CP 5.382)
- Criticism of the a priori method
Your problem is that research is then nothing more than just developing the taste that is accepted by the majority. But since taste is again a matter of fashion, the metaphysicians have never come to a firm agreement (they vacillate between materialism and spiritualism). The a priori method frees us from some accidental and arbitrary elements (authority) in determining our beliefs, but it brings with it others (fashions). The government no longer needs authority and one is left free (for the same thing is acceptable to the common sense of all members of society; we find polygamy, for example, vicious and are convinced of monogamy), but one sees this method quickly crumbling: it there are other societies, e.g. B. those of the Hindus, who are just as sophisticated as ours, who have agreed on polygamy. So it is again some discerning people who see that their beliefs are based on chance and are not determined by facts. Doubt begins again (CP 5.383).
The method of science
The inadequacy of the previous methods makes this method necessary to calm our doubts. It sets our beliefs in such a way that they are determined by something that persists outside of us ("not something human"), something that our thinking has no effect on. Not from mystical, private inspiration, however; that which persists outside of us must be something that affects or can affect everyone . These effects are different for each individual, but the method must be such that the ultimate conclusion for each person will be the same.
The basic hypothesis of this method is: “There are real things whose properties are independent of our opinions about them; this real acts upon our senses according to regular laws, and although our sensations are as varied as our relationships to objects, we can, by relying on the laws of perception, by reasoning, determine with certainty how things really are and in truth are ”(CP 5.384). And with enough experience everyone comes to the same conclusion.
In this hypothesis the concept of reality is presupposed; if this hypothesis is to be the only support of the method, the method of research must not be used to support the hypothesis; nevertheless there are answers to the question of how one should know that there is real:
- If one uses the method in research, one does not come across (in practice) at least the opposite conclusion (which would cancel out the hypothesis and thus the reality) as is the case with other methods [e.g. B. Authority leads beyond itself because of the necessary imperfection of its institutions].
- You don't even want to find a way to establish a belief until you feel that two sentences are incompatible. But in this doubt lies that there must be some thing for which a sentence should stand; everyone has to admit that.
- Everyone uses the scientific method on a great many things (and just doesn't use it if they don't know how to use it).
- The experience with this method does not disappoint us, rather it achieves the most wonderful triumphs.
Peirce does not want to say more about this (that would be "chatter"), since he is completely convinced of the method and the hypothesis that it presupposes. He would be able to convince anyone he could influence too. If someone doubts this anyway, he should check it himself (CP 5.384).
In the following, Peirce discusses contradictions between the method of scientific inquiry and the other methods of establishing a belief:
- Two advantages of the scientific method:
- The scientific one is the only one of the 4 methods that offers the distinction between a true and a false path. Because the persistent does nothing that he does not insist on. And the state, the authority, never commands anything against itself, against the authority. Finally, the essence of the a priori method is to think only as one is inclined to think. "In the light of the scientific method, the possibility of bad and good conclusions becomes visible for the first time ... And this fact is the foundation of the practical side of logic" (CP 5.385).
- In applying the scientific method, one starts from known and observed facts in order to advance to the unknown. With the help of rules. These rules that are used are again subject to scrutiny by the scientific method, and are not, as with the other methods, arbitrary.
- There are also advantages to the other methods of establishing an opinion. Each method is useful in its own way:
- the a priori method is characterized by its convenient conclusions. She accepts whatever belief we are prone to. Namely the pleasant ones - until we are awakened by rough facts.
- Following the method of authority is walking the path of peace. Authority will always direct the crowd and always suppress dangerous thinking. It is part of this that certain deviations are allowed. If it is not enforced by force, then "it will secure the uniformity of opinion through moral terror, to which social decency will give its full approval". No matter where and when, if you are of a belief that is taboo, you will be persecuted. Hence, even the greatest spiritual benefactors of humanity have never said everything. Therefore, from the outset, there is a shadow of doubt on all of her statements that contribute to the security of society. Man is always tempted to submit to authority. He torments himself when he disagrees.
- The method of perseverance has an admirable rigor, simplicity, directness and determination. With such a spiritual rule, however, this is very easy: the persistent are never indecisive about what to do. Your success with it is brilliant, but inconsistent. "It is impossible not to envy him who cannot put his reason aside, although we know how it will eventually end" (CP 5.386).
Enough
These benefits should be considered carefully, but remember that you ultimately want your views to be aligned with the facts. Achieving this result is the virtue of the scientific method: the choice of a method is not a mere assumption of an intellectual opinion, but one of the decisive decisions in life. You stick with it, even if the power of behavior sometimes causes you to cling to old beliefs even after being able to see that they have no firm foundation. Often one shrinks from giving full weight to reflection because one believes beliefs are healthy even when one feels they are not based on anything. Ultimately, however, reflection on the factual situation will triumph over these behavioral habits. "Put these [unscientific] people in front of an analogous case and they will criticize others [who act like themselves] [and thereby themselves]." "More salutary than any particular belief is: the honesty of a belief." as immoral as it is detrimental to avoid asking about the supports of a belief for fear that they will turn out to be lazy. ”There is truth (and falsehood). It simply brings us to the point we want, if we act accordingly and with consideration. Whoever is convinced of this and still does not dare to recognize the truth and tries to avoid it, “is really in a sad state of mind” (CP 5.387). As I said, the other methods have their advantages: a pure, logical conscience costs something (Peirce also calls it a virtue here). This only makes it worth more: one works and fights for such a virtue, for example by spreading it (but as its “knight”, not as its master) (CP 5.387).
literature
- Charles S. Peirce: Writings on Pragmatism and Pragmaticism . Ed .: Karl-Otto Apel. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1967. In Volume 1, on pages 293-325, there is the definition of a belief
- Charles S. Peirce: The Consolidation of Belief and Other Writings . Ed .: Elisabeth Walther. AGIS , Baden-Baden 1986, ISBN 978-3-87007-005-2 .
Web links
- The Fixation of Belief , original text on peirce.org