Charles Pierce (1839–1914) is arguably the least famous of the three American pragmatists, but he was the first to use the term. Peirce reasoned that thoughts must have the job of producing beliefs. “Our beliefs guide our desires and shape our actions,” he wrote. Underlying every action is a series of beliefs. In contrast, a belief that does not have consequences for action is empty and dead. For instance, you might believe that it is better to buy a new Rambler than a new Gremlin. For fun, you might even debate me on my choice of cars. But the belief that either is better has no practical application when you consider that neither Ramblers nor Gremlins are made anymore.

Peirce's Father, Benjamin Peirce, was a professor of astronomy and mathematics at Harvard University. Charles went on to study chemistry at Harvard in 1855, graduating with a bachelor's degree. He then worked for the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey and earned a master's degree and Sc.B. in chemistry. Despite his education, he could only obtain nontenured teaching posts. He lectured on the philosophy of science while continuing to work for the Coastal Survey. This pattern of full-time work with part-time lecturing in philosophy became the pattern of his life.

A Theory of Meaning

Peirce coined the word pragmatism from the Greek word pragmameaning “work,” “act,” or “deed.” He did this to make a point: to show that words derive their meanings from actions of some sort. Ideas are clear if they can be translated into some kind of operation. For example, the adjectives hard and heavy have meaning only because you are able to conceive of effects associated with the words. Thus the word hard tends to mean that which cannot be scratched by other substances, as with diamonds. Heavy could mean whatever falls if you let go of it. There would be no difference between hard and heavy things if they did not test differently. From such simple examples Peirce generalized about the nature of meaning and knowledge in general. His basic point was that our idea of anything was our idea of its sensible effects.

The Role of Belief

Belief is important in pragmatism, since belief occupies a middle position between thought and action. Beliefs shape your actions. But beliefs are “unfixed” or undercut by doubts, Peirce said. It is when the “irritation of doubt” arises that you must try to justify your beliefs. Faced with doubt, you can try to “fix” your beliefs so that you have a guide for action.

You can fix your beliefs by several methods — most of them incorrect — according to Peirce. First, there is the method of tenacity, whereby people cling tightly to their beliefs, refusing to even entertain doubts about them or to consider arguments or evidence for another point of view. In this method you pile up all the evidence you can for a belief and shun all evidence to the contrary. You turn “with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb” your belief. This is the mindset of someone who says, “I know what I believe; don't confuse me with the facts.”

A second way of fixing beliefs is the method of authority. Here a community of believers follows the beliefs of an authority or an entire institution. A culture based on the principle of authority cannot tolerate diverse opinions or even have contact with other belief systems. You often find the principle of authority at work in people dedicated to a political party or extreme forms of religious thinking. Peirce said that it might be wise to remember the counsel of Montaigne (1532–1592). Montaigne thought that skepticism was an antidote to the intolerance born of excessive religious zeal. Doubt is a good thing, Montaigne thought, it stops fanaticism.

A third method is the a priori method. Here one embraces beliefs because they are “agreeable to reason.” However, what is agreeable to reason is subjective. Pierce thought that no fixed opinion existed in meta-physics. Plato's idealism was sensible to Platonists; Descartes's dualism was agreeable to his sense of reason; Kant's pietism made a sense of duty sound reasonable, even thought it was founded on religion as much as reason. Here one's belief system is a kind of creature comfort, a cozy pet theory or hobbyhorse; a well-entrenched intellectual prejudice.

Peirce disagreed with all of these methods because they failed to fix or settle belief. What they lacked was some connection with experience and behavior. He then offered a fourth method, the method of science. This method Peirce praised because of its realistic basis in experience. As a means of resolving conflicts between alternative beliefs, Peirce recommended the scientific method, which he felt was a means to combat personal prejudice.

In his works Peirce praises the method of science for three reasons: (1) The method of science requires that you state the truth you believe and how you arrived at it. In this way, your procedures will be known to anyone who wishes to retrace the same steps to test whether the same results occur. Peirce continually emphasizes the public or community character of the method of science. (2) The method of science is self-examining and self-critical. It subjects your cherished conclusions to severe tests. Peirce says this ought also to be your attitude toward all of your beliefs, scientific and otherwise. (3) Peirce thought that science requires cooperation among all members of the scientific community. Such cooperation prevents any individual or group from shaping truth to fit its own interests. Similarly, in questions of belief and truth, it should be possible for anyone to come to the same conclusions.

All told, the method of science is empirical. It is a method rooted in observation and discovers things as they actually are. The method of science highlights errors and is self-corrective. It can be tested independent of our pet beliefs or dearest wishes.