Im stuck and need some input or critique, I know what I want to say but am having a very hard time wording it. Input? The Problem With Peircian Truth Introduction: From Peirce’s perspective one can conclude that he believes that truth is what works, and what people are to agree on after all possible explanations have been examined. Although this can be seen as a way to understand what we come to know and as tool of understanding, it does not provide a thorough definition of truth which claims that truth holds absolute certainty. There are many problems with Peirce’s definition of truth as it does not conclude with absolute certainty what truth is and how it remains to hold true. Through this paper I will explain how Peirce definition of truth does not hold reasonable enough evidence to his viewpoint. Through the methods of induction and the pragmatic viewpoint known as the web of beliefs, I will show how Peirce definition of truth does not hold validity and that truth should be defined as being something that is empirically proven and contains absolute certainty in order to remain valid and then be claimed as true. Peirce believed that truth is what inquires are fated to agree on in the long run. This can be interpreted as all functional truths are ones that people are able to agree on and seem to work and do have value to the inquirer. Examples of functional truths are such as mathematics, theorems, experience, and observations. From Peirce perspective, a functional truth would be acquired as follows: If snow is observed, then it appears to be white, therefore the snow is white. If the observer(s) keep observing snow, in the long run snow will still be white. This he takes as a functional truth and the sentence “snow is white” is true. Peirce claims that there are two ways to construct a belief of truth. The first, is run more experiments. This can be used in the same example of “snow is white” as previously stated above (I.e: each time it snows observe the snow and if it appears to be white then again, it can be concluded that the snow is white). The second way that Peirce claims we are able to construct a belief of truth is through asking other people. This can be used in the snow example again by asking other people if they observe snow as white when it is experienced. Again, most observers would agree in the claim that their observation and experience of the snow being white. Although these two methods of how to construct a belief of truth seem to work in instances like the observation of snow, it still does not provide enough evidence to support the claim that truth is what works in the long run. From my knowledge, Peirce definition of truth should be reconstructed into the following: Repeated observations can be used in our everyday lives as modes of understanding that may not hold one hundred percent certainty. Truth should be defined as something that holds absolute certainty and proven to be one hundred percent verifiable (aka true). Premise 1: Peircian Truth and induction When Peirce claims that truth is what works in the long run it seems to be that he is in part pointing to the notion of induction. In inductive reasoning, a person makes a series of observations and is able to make a hypothesis based on the series of observations. For example, an inductive claim such as the sun has risen every day therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow would be considered true to Peirce. This is because by his definition it is what people would agree on in the long run (the sun has risen for millions of years therefore it will repeat itself as it has in the past). If someone was to ask me if I believed that the sun will rise tomorrow I would assume the answer to be yes based off of the observation that it has risen every day since I was born. However, this claim does not hold to be empirically true because the sun one day will not rise destroying the belief and the claim that the sun will rise again tomorrow. The hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow can be concluded from the observation that it has risen every day, I.e “in the long run” but this should not be held as something that is true, rather a mere observation of repetition. The problem with induction and Peirce definition of truth is that it does not contain any data that would produce a concrete definition of what is absolutely true only probability. Yet, it still serves as a mode and tool for us to use and construct beliefs and hypotheses. From Peirce’s definition of what truth is, it appears he is aiming more towards the definition of truth as being inductive claims, such as “the sun will rise tomorrow” and “Snow is white”. Again, these claims can assume to be true, but should not be held as concrete and functional truths for there is no way for them to be proven one hundred percent true. Most people would agree that induction is generally accepted as useful and without it would be nearly impossible to construct hypotheses and beliefs. But this does not mean that induction should be considered to provide functional or foundational truths for there is only statistical data which infers them to hold truth, and not certainty. It is the case that Peirce’s claim that “truth is what works in the long run” does hold value in our day to day lives but should be replaced with a word other than truth. Truth is to be defined as something that holds absolute certainty and his definition is not enough to support this claim. Rather than stating that truth is what works in the long run, Peirce should change his claim to “induction is what works in the long run” as it seems to better suit his original claim.
Posted on: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:54:49 +0000