Charles S. Peirce was an American Philosopher, logician, mathematicians as well as a scientist. He was born in 1839 and died in 1914. Through-out his life, Peirce wrote a book about The Fixation of Belief in which he discusses his four methods of esatablishing beliefs. These methods can be tested with any subject matter by anybody and one shall always fit.
The first method that Peirce discusses is fixing beliefs by tenacity, this is when someone believes in something and they are not willing to hear anything else that is opposing to what they belief, if they feel that there is any danger that their belief will be shaken or that they might re-consider what they believe in, they will automatically reject it and not even consider it. People using this type of method will often say things like “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I’ve already made up my mind”. Their gold standard of truth is what they already believe in; any divergent claims that rise will be regarded as false while anything else said that is already what they believe in will be considered as true. By escaping doubt and latching on to belief by refusing to listen to anything else, anyone can easily make up their mind on what to believe in and what to refute. However this method does not cause our belief to reach reality. Moreover the social impulse which exposes us to other beliefs will make us swing away from our held beliefs, and others orientations cause us to question our own orientation or shake the confidence about it. For example if someone chooses a specific religion which he finds appealing and is attached to it dogmatically, and he is avoiding any reading or hearing that may alter or shake his faith in this religious faith, then he is practicing the method of...
... middle of paper ...
... something independent than what anyone else thinks. Secondly it must be something public, it must be available to everyone and capable of affecting anyone, it will not be specified to a certain group or individuals. Finally it will involve fixing beliefs in everyone in almost the same way, this method will be capable of fixing the same belief for everyone, in this way we can avoid the social impulse; if everyone beliefs the same thing, then no one will have to doubt his belief due to other peoples influence.
These requirements are all found in the 4th and final method which is the method of Science, this method involves paying attention to our experience of the world and then reasoning from what we have seen or heard to try to figure out how the real worlds works or how things really are. According to Peirce, this method is the best at fixing beliefs in a society.
The first method of Peirce fixing beliefs is the method of tenacity, the role of this method play how simply or directly the person's believe their own view and never stray from their system of beliefs, they will forever be satisfied thus acquiring a great peace of mind. For example, if a person already believes that she/he thinks is that yes it is true. On the other hand, if it's something a person does not already believe that she/he thinks it is no that is not true. Moreover, this is a very simple method for deciding what to believe and doesn't require much thinking, Peirce says, so it's pretty handy.
The purpose of this paper is to closely examine the effects of children with congenital profound visual impairment (CPVI) and a possible correlation to the delay in the development of theory of mind (ToM). Specifically, this paper will compare a study that investigated how visual cues affect the development of ToM to a similarly themed episode from the popular television show Xena: Warrior Princess. On the surface these two groups may appear to be an odd comparison, for children with CPVI and Xena seem like they have nothing in common. However, there is one episode in particular entitled “Blind Faith,” in which these two worlds collide in a unique and surprising way proving and interesting parallel and additional insight into how blindness may affect the development of the theory of mind.
For instance, let us look at the broad but always hot topic of religious matters, or affairs. First, take into account Peirce’s first method, which is the method of tenacity. Its definition is, “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.” There is a very strong argument that this could be the method of choice for religious belief. Take apart the definition, for a moment and you might begin to see this. As it talks about constantly reiterating the belief to ourselves, it may very well be said that this could be construed as going to church each week.. What happens in church? Well, we pray, sing, give thanks and offerings, all that we may be reminded that our purpose in life is to serve our Lord with gladness and with all of our hearts at all times. The part that I do not see fit in the first method is the part about turning with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it. From past experience, I have always found religious people to be some of the most open minded people, willing to listen and be attentive to anything you have to say. They do not turn with contempt and hatred if you do not believe exactly what they believe. The only case where I see a religious group shutting out anything and everything, would be the monks.
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
beliefs using logic and science. If you do, there is no way to prove the
According to the tenacity method, an individual picks a belief that he/she likes and determinedly sticks to it no matter what; also, this method consists of intentional avoidance of occurrences that can possibly stimulate doubt towards ones current belief. Although this method is not reliable for fixing a belief, people tenaciously hold onto a belief because it is an old habit that comes naturally, and something that they feel comfortable with. An example for the method of tenacity is, someone who picks to strictly follow the Buddhist religion, and avoids reading/ hearing anything that the person feel is capable of threatening the religious faith. The person is comfortable with what he/she believes and does not want anything to destabilize that. According to Peirce, a person wants stability and consistency in life; if strictly believing in a faith helps with stability, they will do whatever it takes to keep it, even if it includes avoiding the truth.
Those who have belief were taught it or learn in a formal setting. It can be changed, altered or
While confined in the Birmingham City Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to his followers, more importantly the eight clergymen. Informing them what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to achieve was in the name of peace and would maintain his functions nonviolent for the safety of everyone. Henry David Thoreau wrote his letter describing the reasons why he did not believe in the government. He believed that it was unjust for him to pay taxes, to directly fund the war that the United States was in at the time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had much in common with Henry David Thoreau in the sense that men were fighting for equal rights and believed in justice for the people. Yet Dr. King and Mr. Thoreau differentiated from each other in rather simple ways, such as Dr. King was successful with what he intended on doing and Mr. Thoreau was not. In hindsight both men either successful or not, we know them to this day for what they tried doing to help the American people.
John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his "Cursory Reflections upon a Book Call'd, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norris's criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate; however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norris's argument against the foundation of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnston's "Locke's Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Locke's replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin; her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjective analysis of Locke's stance in relation to Norris's criticisms of the Essay. This paper provides those facts, revealing the philosophical—not personal—impetus for Locke's replies.
a) Christians believe many different things about God’s nature; due to the huge spectrum of Christians that there are. However, as a general rule they perceive God as being one of the following four things:
the importance of the conflicting beliefs, by acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or
Pope John Paul II once said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” (Fallible Blogma) Based on this significant and powerful quote, one can infer that faith and reason are directly associated and related. It can also be implied that the combination of faith and reason allows one to seek information and knowledge about truth and God; based on various class discussions and past academic teachings, it is understood that both faith and reason are the instruments that diverse parties are supposed to use on this search for truth and God. There are many stances and viewpoints on the issues of faith and reason. Some believe that both of these ideas cannot and should not be combined; these parties deem that faith and reason must be taken as merely separate entities. However, this writer does not understand why both entities cannot be combined; both terms are so closely compatible that it would make sense to combine the two for a common task. Based on various class discussions and readings, there are many philosophers and theologians who have certain opinions regarding faith, reason and their compatibility; these philosophers include Hildegard of Bingen, Ibn Rushd, Moses Maimonides, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The following essay will examine each of the previously stated philosopher’s viewpoints on faith and reason, and will essentially try to determine whether or not faith and reason are ultimately one in the same.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
Carl Sagan's The Fine Art of Baloney Detection depicts the importance of thinking skeptically before new ideas can be accepted (Sagan, 1997). Skeptical thinking pertains to our ability to distinguish what is true from what is false in some sort of logical argument or idea. Sagan promotes nine tools for this type of thinking, six of which I believe are the most useful will be discussed throughout this essay.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.