In his philosophical works, The Fixation of Belief, the renowned Charles Pierce greatly argues that the most valued method of any science is definitely superior to all of the other known methods, because of its established and proven ability to always establish what is deemed true and also what is never true in a very objective way. He goes on to argue that because people are never obliged to experience any of these methods that have not led us to have doubts, science methods will always and definitely necessitate a one verified and true conclusion. Since his ideas and theories have always been reinforced by many of the astounding and verifiable fruits of science, his arguments stem out as being very powerful to always persist in this 21st century, in a particular aspect as that subtext for most common faith in all science as the only society’s salvation. It calls for this to be the main basis of this paper to gear towards challenging not only the echoed scientific method, but also work on the notion of fixation of belief itself, even if it is from a subjective or even an objective point of view, which has been center stage in driving the Pierce’s theory (Eisele, 1979).
Pierce commences with a great appeal to all logic to always determine whatever is considered true, rather than being out to please and also encourage many visions, which, from another side, may occasion a very fallacious tendency of people’s thought. His major point lies on implementation of all logic and strive towards irritation of any doubts. In a bid to analyze the common man’s mind, Pierce goes on to write that the specific struggle has always been its sole object in the settlement of all people’s opinions in line with a given fact rather than any bid to knowing the eventful truth of that specific fact itself. He goes on to remind us that any true conclusion would always remain true if one could have no impulse in line with accepting it. Pierce then goes on to provide a very powerful analysis of all the various methods involved in fixing dire belief. This is a major way of ensuring all his targeted audience get directly involved in the whole idea that he is trying to put across.
Just like other philosophers of his time, he defines tragedy as imitation of a serious act that has certain magnitude and is embellished in speech and is accomplished by evoking such emotions as terror and pity. In his poetic works, Aristotle introduces us to six different elements he outlines as being components of tragedy. They include plot, diction, spectacle, character, song and thought. Existing bounties of their known prowess as versatile hunters, pride of being a great component. Whether they were the givers or even the receivers, they always retained and tempered their celebrated humility in their own ways of often receiving many gifts that were out to ridicule the main giver and also spin any unexpected “put down” that may prevail, to the eventual successful person. The latter while basing on reality was known to be “sharing” with others more than even gifting them and thus, eventually equalizing the given gift in a way that will also involve the main giver. In that perspective, one who spoke very negatively about the given gift that emanated from the famous philosopher was considered as high in praise. They were always teaching him all about how they took upon themselves to accept him at long last into their midst and considered the gift as an obligation of the giver as they were fellow “hunters”. This is where one person feels that the reward for any achievement is only by being given a lot by people in society, yet at some point it may come out as a curse.
This means that through his works, one can vividly understand why he was out to support the scientific methods.
He describes belief as being one of the dreaded nature of any habit and dismisses what he eventually calls the ultimate method of one’s tenacity, noting that very many humans always prefer contentment to any truth and will gear towards avoiding doubt the moment they settle upon a given comforting belief; thus considers habitual belief to be a known subject to all logical fallacy. Pierce is optimistic in his writing, however, that all the social impulse that exists is against the eventual survival of this famous method. Since all individuals in that society are confronted with the major ideas of other people, and hence, will eventually allow the latter’s opposing ideas to become more valid. He also uses another example to elucidate on his works. Communication is very important prior to putting a performance management system into practice. Every associated party in the process of managing performance such as the organization’s shareholders, managers, employees and even associated parties such as clients and partners. Communication helps each of those affected groups to understand every aspect of the performance management process. Shareholders must be informed of the advantages of the whole process towards the organization’s productivity. Shareholders must be aware of the processes taking place in the organization they have invested. This gives them confidence in what the management is doing to improve the organization.
Pierce still elucidates on the same by enlisting all the theories that exist in his fashionable contemporary, according to Darwin, in order to always prove that the desired survival of all the human species always depends upon the final competition of all ideas, and on further advancing that the specific survival seriously demands that people find a complex method of always fixing belief in the suitable not only to all the individuals, but to the whole community. He goes on to note, however, that the government of the time ultimately mandates all truth according to their desires and interests that are contrary to the integrity of any logic. This means that this approach, which he eventually refers to as the method of all authority, inevitably gears towards leading to one’s own logical fallacies (Eisele, 1979).
Having dismissed all methods of fixing any belief, Pierce moves on to make his case for the science method that he has supported all through. Since people’s opinion of general truth never changes whether it is appears true or not, he still argues that any method should always be found in a way that our beliefs are caused by a non-human creature, but greatly by some external permanency. Therefore, this means that it has to be affected only by something that people’s thinking has no great effect. Pierce supports scientific methods since they are tested and also verified. Moreover, they have basis in their quest to ensure that they always underscore the notion of truth. He writes that all the scientific methods presume that existing realities always affect our common senses according to all regular laws. This is despite the fact that all our sensations are often different as all our relations to the given objects. He postulates that by one clearly taking advantage of all laws of personal perception, one can clearly ascertain by always reasoning how many things are considered to be and eventually one true conclusion will be sought.
Unfortunately, Pierce did not consider critically analyzing and probing all his arguments for all the definite method of his supported science as very thoroughly and also powerfully as he has been seen to do for the other methods. A good example would be the fact that any person’s experience with science is always left pondering on some explanations and also doubts in line with its infallibility. The whole theory teaches us all about the varied and diverse cultures that people have in the world in relation to our own. In line with our own cultural and societal dynamics of any gifting, we always recognize most motives that are often also not very pure as we could at all levels hope for. Americans always place an unjust and also undue value on any exacting gratitude whenever they offer gifts, and in such a case distorting and also manipulative cognition and motives.
Scientific methods have also failed to hold water when it comes to explaining certain phenomena in line with survival of human nature. Pierce should have given an open door to any critics in order to stand a chance of being corrected (Eisele, 1979).
Pierce’s theory is deeply rooted in the major idea that all doubt is a definite irritant, and this latter always drives human inquiry. As a matter of fact, great as any of that tradition may appear, there are a lot of cultures in this world that do never share the need to always be in total control. Doubt has only been irritating to many of those who always demand to know, those who are deemed impatient with the known cosmos, those who still demand to have total control of their world that always lacks reins. Pierce managed to invoke people’s feeling of a lot of dissatisfaction as the main cause for total examination of the two opposed or ideas (Eisele, 1979).