Comparing Peirce, Bacon, Kuhn And Polkinghorn

While Peirce, Bacon, Kuhn and Polkinghorn are all Empiricists, I can relate mostly with Kuhn’s position regarding universality and objectivity of the scientific method. Kuhn acknowledged that paradigms established by the scientific community shift periodically as new discoveries are made. These new paradigms lead to new questions of existing data and possibly a new direction in the research field. Not simply relying on past research and experience, but instead being open to exploring alternatives to long-held beliefs will enable the scientific community to experience a greater level of progress. Peirce on the other hand would argue that Kuhn’s viewpoint brings along the risk of us being “contrite fallibilists”- a discovery of error prompting a revision of our opinions. Peirce wants us to be aware that mistakes in the scientific process are not only possible but to be expected and does not want us to be skeptics. Once mistakes are discovered, corrections should be made, but not as drastic as proposed by Kuhn with changing all paradigms. Peirce, an American philosopher instead is proposing a pragmatist maxim for testing hypotheses. By applying a “checks and balances” system a scientist is able to experiment with his/her environment and gain knowledge from these experiments. This is a much more conservative approach to science and stands in contrast to Kuhn. Kuhn rejected this “development-by-accumulation” of accepted facts and theories. He suggested that discovering “anomalies” during scientific revolutions force us to change entire scientific
paradigms – something we should be concerned about. Peirce’s approach therefore seems much more reasonable than and not as radical as Kuhn’s position.
Peirce, a pragmatist, wants us to use reasoning and making inferences. These inferences will let us draw conclusions from a given premises. However, this inference will only be valid if it offers us a true conclusion from a true premise and our feelings regarding the conclusion are irrelevant. Even if we are resistant to accepting the conclusion, the conclusion would still be true. Peirce refers our tendency to draw one inference rater than another form a given premise, “habit of mind”. This in itself is not harmful as long as it still leads to a true conclusion from a true premise. Kuhn sees this as “normal science”. He suggests that scientists that scientists should avoid resisting the acceptance of conclusions and be open to leaving established paradigms behind. Kuhn understands that the scientific community will oppose conceptual changes, but thinks that bold revolutionist are crucial to moving science forward. Peirce’s views are superior because it will keep us from coming up with rash conclusions and the reasonable approach will ensure that the changes made are well thought out and were not influenced by feelings. He is not interested in bold revolutions within science but constant and steady progress.
Peirce sees humans in a continuous state of either doubt or belief. While these states might make us feel very differently, doubt causing discomfort and belief offering content, both states have a positive effect. Doubt will cause us to seek truth and move us forward instead of letting us be stagnant. Belief gives us a feeling of security and in moments of doubt, this feeling of security aids us in the decision making process. When Peirce describes the method of tenacity as his first method of fixing belief, he makes it clear, that this method only works for one person, not a society. It suggests that we should choose a belief, reinforce it and ignore all opposing views. This of course is in stark contrast to Kuhn being willing to shift all paradigms and throw out the baby with the bath water. The second method examined by Peirce is the method of authority. Here an entire belief is forces upon a community and opposing thought is forbidden. This approach can lead to cruelty and atrocities as can be seen throughout history. Peirce’s’ third method of fixing belief is also a failure since the priori method reduces inquiry and belief seems tied to a matter of taste. Metaphysical theories only seem reasonable but are not actually grounded in fact and therefore cause more doubt. Finally, Peirce comes to the conclusion that the method of science is the best method of fixing belief since it is based on reality. Real things affect our senses according to regular laws and reality become clear. The method has several advantages including that it is successfully used regularly and practitioners have been able to settle opinion using this method.
Kuhn clearly criticizes the fact that scientific research does not begin in a vacuum; instead it is a result of the scientific method and pre-existing beliefs.
This makes science not purely scientific since the existing fundamental beliefs influence the scientific method. While Peirce stressed the importance of the scientific method, he does not see pre-existing beliefs as a threat to science being able to move
forward.
Peirce and Kuhn’s ideas are not too radically different; however, I am still a “Kuhnian” even if he himself did not refer to himself as one. Kuhn distanced himself from “normal science” and he wanted to ensure that science did not just discover what it expected to discover. He was ready to be a revolutionary and that is what the world and especially the scientific world needs. A man with a mission to not just follow the status quo but instead make changes. He was a scientist first and foremost as opposed to a philosopher and one can argue if this is a benefit, but in my mind this is what made him so different and his beliefs such a revolution within the scientific community.