[PREV - CACOPHONIES_AND_SOLOS]    [TOP]

PEIRCE_REALITY


                                             February 15, 2010
                                             August   12, 2011
                                             May      11, 2022

   "Thus we may define the real as that whose characters are
   independent of what anybody may think them to be."
        C.S. Peirce, "How to Make our Ideas Clear" (1878)
        http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ideas/id-main.htm#CP5.405

Peirce insists that the character of
things must be limited to their
practically observable nature.

Peirce takes reality to be that which is
independant of our ideas of it...
                                                THE_TRUE_PEIRCE
I think more precisely: reality is that
which reasonable, determined people will
all agree on after thorough investigation.

In other words: science is a social                 Interesting that
process for converging on the truth.                he doesn't use the
                                                    same resolution of
                                                    his "problem" with
                                                    individual reliance
                                                    on probable expectations.

                                                       Maybe he thinks
                                                       he did, and it's
                                                       all the same.

                                                       ((Huh?  What was I
                                                        talking about here?))

Going over Pierce in more detail:

   "... reality, like every other quality, consists
   in the peculiar sensible effects which things
   partaking of it produce. The only effect which
   real things have is to cause belief ..."

An unusual opinon.  The knife's blade may indeed encourage
you to believe in it's existence, but the damage it does
in your gut would not usually be taken as a minor side-effect.

I *think* what Pierce was trying to say is that there's no
point in thinking of sense data produced by the real as
seperate from belief in the reality of the object:

  "for all the sensations which they excite emerge into
   (W3.272) consciousness in the form of beliefs"

Pierce is going for the conventional
correspondence theory of truth: when
your ideas of what's there line up
with what's there, then you've got it:

  "The question therefore is, how is
   true belief (or belief in the real)
   distinguished from false belief (or
   belief in fiction)."                        Let us quietly slink away
                                               from Pierce resorting to
                                               "fiction" as a short-hand
                                               for falsity.

                                               FICTIONAL_MANIFESTO

                                                   When you're going for
                                                   rhetorical parallism
                                                   you need to work the
                                                   synonyms, or else the
                                                   reader may suspect
                                                   redundant tautological
                                                   repetition.




http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ideas/id-main.htm#CP5.407


     "... all the followers of science are animated by a
     cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if
     only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution
     to each question to which they can be applied."


Pierce goes to town on the idea that scientific progress
can work as a model for the pursuit of truth in general:

     "So with all scientific research. Different minds may set out
     with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of
     investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves
     to one and the same conclusion. This activity of thought by
     which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a
     fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No
     modification of the point of view taken, no selection of
     other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can
     enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great
     law is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The
     opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all
     who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the
     object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the
     way I would explain reality."


                                         http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ideas/id-main.htm#CP5.408

It doesn't take him long to back off on this optimism somewhat:

     "Our perversity and that of others may indefinitely postpone
     the settlement of opinion; it might even conceivably cause
     an arbitrary proposition to be universally accepted as long
     as the human race should last. Yet even that would not
     change the nature of the belief, which alone could be the
     result of investigation carried sufficiently far; ..."

This is a peculiar sort of "pragmatism"-- an insistence that this
truth critereon is still the right one (the true truth?) even
in the absence of any possible observation confirming that this
is so.

     " ... and if, after the extinction of our race,
     another should arise with faculties and disposition       Pierce didn't
     for investigation, that true opinion must be the one      need to wait
     which they would ultimately come to. 'Truth crushed to    around for
     earth shall rise again,' and the opinion which would      "Last and first
     finally result from investigation does not depend on      Men."
     how anybody may actually think. But the reality of
     that which is real does depend on the real fact that
     investigation is destined to lead, at last, if
     continued long enough, to a belief in it."

Dude, what was that you were saying about learning to
dodge the metaphysical?  This deep abiding faith...         SUNKEN_REEFS



                            I have an old note about how this
                            might be compared to the "reasonable
                            man" standard--  Legal decisions
                            sometimes invoke a fictional
                            point-of-view that's similarly shaky
                            if you think about it in any detail:

                               In point of face, reasonable men
                               don't always agree, and what seems
                               reasonable often changes over time.

                                   In practice this is an
                                   insistance on looking
                                   at things in a
                                   normal/moderate way...




--------
[NEXT - FAST_SLOW_AND_SLOWER]