Peirce on Science and Metaphysics

In1877 Peirce distinguished four different methods of “fixating our beliefs”, among which I here concentrate on what could be called the “method of tenacity” and the “method of science”. I then use these distinctions to argue that despite their apparent conflict, pragmatism, relying on the method of tenacity, and naturalism, relying on the method of science, can and should coexist, bothin science and in metaphysics. In1877 Peirce distinguished four different methods ,of “fixating our beliefs” (Peirce 1877), among which I will concentrate on what could be called the “method of tenacity”, to becontrasted,with the “method of science”. The method ,of tenacity ,is described ,as an epistemic attitude that consists in reinforcing one’s beliefs at all costs, however they are arrived at, while the method of science consists instead in letting one’s beliefs be constantly shaped and revised by empirical, mind-independent regularities (laws) that are exemplified by natural phenomena. In this pa...

2011

Studies in Philosophy and …, 2005

2014

A real surprising fact is the absence of the phrase “Scientific Metaphysics” in Charles S. Peirce writings in spite of the presence of that expression on the spine of volume 6 of Peirce’s Collected Papers. In order to explain the circumstances of that fact and to get a clearer view of this expression, the paper is arranged into five sections: 1) a brief presentation of Peirce, focusing on his work as a professional scientist; 2) an exposition of Peirce’s conception of science; 3) a sketch of the notion of metaphysics in the mature Peirce; 4) an attempt to answer the question of what a scientific metaphysics is; and finally, 5) a brief conclusion.

This was my undergraduate thesis. I am happy to share if you'd like. Please just get in touch. The takeaway is that to have a problem is to already have certain constraints. Science is only possible for those who believe there is a world out there to learn about. A starting assumption that proves fruitful.

2023

A comparison of Peirce on inquiry and doubt and the recent "zetetic turn" in epistemology. Written for the 2023 Central APA

The Method of Scientific Discovery in Peirce’s Philosophy: Deduction, Induction, and Abduction, 2011

In this paper we will show Peirce’s distinction between deduction, induction and abduction. The aim of the paper is to show how Peirce changed his views on the subject, from an understanding of deduction, induction and hypotheses as types of reasoning to understanding them as stages of inquiry very tightly connected. In order to get a better understanding of Peirce’s originality on this, we show Peirce’s distinctions between qualitative and quantitative induction and between theorematical and corollarial deduction, passing then to the distinction between mathematics and logic. In the end, we propose a sketch of a comparison between Peirce and Whitehead concerning the two thinkers’ view of mathematics, hoping that this could point to further inquiries.

Finally someone has saved future Peirce scholars from having to piece together for themselves the comparative points in Peirce's development as it concerns his most widely read essays. The significance of the Popular Science Monthly articles of 1877–78 for pragmatism and for Peirce's thought is universally known. Cornelis de Waal here brings together the comprehensive story of these articles and their eventual fate. He documents it in a way that anyone can grasp, and through careful study of this text, many essentials relating to the development of Peirce's thought can be learned.