Which method of fixing belief do you use most often? Why?

Which method of fixing belief would you say others use most often? Why?

Why might thinking about this question be important?

1. CharlesSandersPierce

No matter the theory, theory is intimately tied to how we come to know things. Charles Sanders Peirce was one who theorized about how we come to know what we do. To use a term from our textbook, Peirce was focused on epistemology, a domain of knowledge that concentrates on this process of knowing, this coming to know. In 1877 Peirce wrote an essay entitled "The Fixation of Belief" in which he theorized about the different ways people come to believe and hold onto things as true, that is, how beliefs come to be fixed.

2. Fixing#1Tenacity

The largest part of Peirce's essay is devoted to four ways of knowing, four ways of fixing belief. The first way of fixing belief is tenacity. Peirce calls this way of fixing belief "taking as answer to a question any we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it." Knowing something by tenacity means clinging to an idea no matter what one may hear from other sources. Peirce uses the example of someone who warned him not to read a certain paper because it might alter his thoughts on free trade. This person evidently supported free trade and wasn't going to be persuaded otherwise so he didn't want to be exposed to the paper and didn't want anyone else to be exposed to it either. The modern day equivalent might be the person who warns you not to watch Fox News or CNN because you might be swayed in a certain direction. When I think of tenacity, I can't help but think about my grandpa. When I was a kid, my grandpa would always talk about how professional wrestling was real and that sports were fixed. For him, Maurice 'Mad Dog' Vachon and Crybaby George Cannon had more credibility than Gordie Howe and Hank Aaron. I can laugh about it now in realizing just how tenaciously he held onto that idea. Nothing could convince him otherwise to the point that we just stopped talking about it.

We might criticize someone who believes something by tenacity, but Peirce doesn't see this way of knowing as entirely bad. For him, the power of this form of belief is its purity. No one can shake the individual who holds to something tenaciously. The person holding this belief also has great peace of mind and can rest in the solidity of their belief. Peirce goes on to say that people who believe things with tenacity "are distinguished for their decision of character...They don't waste time in trying to make up their minds what they want, but, fastening like lightening upon whatever alternative comes first, they hold it to the end...This is one of the splendid qualities which generally accompany brilliant, unlasting success." Tenacity can lead to good things. My grandpa's tenaciously held beliefs about wrestling allowed him to enjoy watching it that much more.

3. TenacityIllustration

On the other hand, the weakness of this form of belief is that other people may come and continuously shake that person's belief, whether consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. Not everyone who comes along will agree with this person and he might find that their opinions are just as good as his are. His conviction in his own beliefs could be

shaken. Peirce suggests that we cannot isolate ourselves and must come into contact with others so living life based on tenacity won't be a reasonable option.

Peirce argues that people who hold to beliefs based on tenacity are like ostriches who bury their heads in the sand when danger is coming. They will not be moved by the presence of others and will keep that head buried. They will not want to pay attention to arguments other people bring against their position.

4. Fixing#2Authority

"Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people to reiterate them perpetually and to teach them to the young; having at the same time the power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed." This is the means of fixing belief by authority. When you believe something by authority, an authority figure of some kind has moved you to believe what they have to say because of their position of leadership.

Fixing belief based on authority has been greatly successful, much more successful than tenacity. Peirce argues that beliefs based on authority have generated incredible results. For example, fixing belief based on authority has resulted in the construction of the pyramids and allowed us to organize our time according to a well-conceived religious calendar. In fact, he argues that there might not be a better way to fix belief in humanity than via authority. Fixing belief based on authority will also result in peace. If a person won't conform to authority and disturbs the peace with their rebellion, they will be subdued or removed by that authority.

However, trying to fix belief by authority might be weak in that it cannot regulate every single thing that every single person thinks. Authority can be a wonderful thing as long as those under its power can't think very well. Peirce says that not all people under a given authority will buy into what that authority is saying. Some will choose to think independently and realize that there might be other courses of action to adopt or other decisions to be made. It might begin with one idea that differs from what an authority has said and then that one difference will be the first domino that falls triggering a series of doubts and questions.

5. ResultsofAuthorityCanbeRepressive

One of the greatest dangers in fixing belief with authority is that the result of authority can be repression. The Nazis and the book burning you see in the picture in front of you illustrate the kind of repressive authority Peirce speaks of. Peirce sees authority as cruel and oppressive in this essay. He associates fixing belief by authority as "the arbitrary forcing of it upon others." He argues that fixing of belief through authority has been predominantly used by political and religious organizations to promote what they believe to be true.

We might challenge Peirce about his conception of authority even if he appears to be right about the kinds of things that follow from it.

6. Fixing#3--APriori(15-18)

The third means of fixing belief involves a priori. This method of fixing belief suggests that "men, conversing together and regarding matters in different lights, gradually develop beliefs in harmony with natural causes." A priori involves coming to know something by logic and logical discussion. If you remember our discussion of the dialogue model of communication, you will see how this statement links up to the way classical philosophers understood what would happen in dialogue. Peirce interprets the philosophers practicing this way of fixing belief. They sit around and discuss different ideas from different perspectives in order to gradually come to see the world in new ways and to produce knowledge.

The strength of a priori comes in the fact that knowledge which comes about in this way is reasonable and rational. His example of what is reasonable is that it is reasonably assumed that people will act in a self-interested way. Peirce argues that this use of reason is intellectual and respectable as opposed to fixing belief by tenacity and authority. Peirce also argues that the a priori method has the benefit of "comfortable conclusions" that come from a pool of minds. One can sit around and walk through a problem in a logical manner and come to a satisfactory solution to that particular problem, a comfortable conclusion through the benefit of talking through it with others.

One of the weaknesses of the a priori way of fixing belief could be that it might ignore reality. This would be the accusation leveled against academics, especially those in the humanities who do not do the work of scientists. They occasionally get criticized for staying in the ivory tower talking with other eggheads about ideas and concepts that never seem to approach the reality they are supposed to be addressing.

7. NobelLaureates

Here's a picture of a group of scientists coming together to use a priori methods of fixing belief. They are producing knowledge in conversation with one another as they discuss various things.

8. Fixing#4Science

Peirce believes that this is the most useful and effective means of fixing belief because he believes that our thinking doesn't have any effect on science. He argues that science allows every single person to use the scientific method to come to the same scientific conclusion. In this sense, the scientific method and the scientific subject mesh. Everyone can use the same scientific method and examine the same scientific subject. Pierce argues that it is natural to use the scientific method and that the scientific method studies what is natural. When one properly practices the method, they won't have any doubts about it and won't need to question it.

Peirce also explains that science is collective in that it makes one scientist accountable to another. It is reasonable in employing a specific, rational method. It also carefully notes facts.

Peirce sees science as the only way that demonstrates a right and a wrong way of doing things. All the other methods can only justify themselves and can't really test the methodology. With tenacity, the method of fixing belief purposely ignores all other influences. With authority, the method of fixing belief comes down to whatever the state thinks. With a priori, the method of fixing belief is tied to thinking "as one is inclined to think." With science, the test of whether or not one is truly following the method is applying the method.

One thing to remember about science is that for us to come to know something by science would mean doing the actual experiments ourselves. If come to know something through science, but are not doing the experiments ourselves, then science is an authority and we are coming to know via authority.

9. Problemsw/Science

Science also has its weaknesses. As much as it tries to explain everything, there are still many things science has no answer for. For example, science has yet to explain love. I am sure you have all heard someone who is engaged asked how they know that their significant other is 'the one.' Invariably, their response is, "I just know." This is certainly my experience. I didn't need to do a scientific experiment with multiple verifiable tests in a project with other scientists to determine whether or not I was supposed to marry my future wife. As far as I know, she didn't need one either. We both just knew. Science could not explain it. We could say similar things about religious experience as well. Many people around the world have religious experiences that simply can't be explained scientifically. The existence of God might be proven logically, but it cannot be proven scientifically. Yet millions have an experience with God on a daily basis. Science cannot explain this phenomenon.

Science can be valuable, but its weakness is that it cannot explain everything.

10. Fixation of Belief and 9/11

To illustrate how these ideas might work, let's briefly apply them to 9/11. How have we come to know what we know about 9/11? 1) tenacityThere may be those who tenaciously believe that the tragedy was a government conspiracy and who simply ignore other arguments against their position. 2) authorityThere may be those who believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks because someone who they deem an authority told them so. There might be those who hold onto beliefs about what happened that day because of authorities like television stations and newspapers. Others might believe authorities like the President and his explanation of what happened that day. 3) a prioriThere may be those who have tried to explain why this happened in logical discussion with one another and come to conclusions based on this discussion. 4) scienceThere may be those who have

had the opportunity to do scientific tests at Ground Zero, come to know certain things and reported them to others.

You might think about your own experiences with 9/11 and ask yourself how you have come to know about what happened that day.

11. Value of Comm Theory

So we've looked at theory generally and we've looked at an example of theorizing in Peirce's work on epistemology. But what is all this good for anyways? Is theory really just that? Theoretical mumbo-jumbo that has no influence on what I do or how I think? For some help with these questions, we could go back to chapter 1 of the textbook. Our authors give us four reasons why theory is important. I won't go into great detail here, but just want to lay these out.

First, learning about theory helps you become a better critical thinker. Critical thinking is vital to your relationships and to your work life. If you can use the material in this course to think more deeply about things you do every day, you will have understood the value of communication theory.

Second, learning about theory will help you learn more about the communication discipline. I don't think the textbook or this course can give you the entire picture, but you will get a good start on exploring what communication theorists and scholars do in this course. That should be helpful as you explore other Communication courses.

Third and fourth, learning about theory can help you understand your own experiences and yourself in new ways. Whether it happens to be an interpersonal relationship or a website you visit on your smartphone, communication theory can enable you to reflect on what these things mean and allow you to consider how these communicative experiences shape your everyday life.

All this to say that theory is not something abstract and irrelevant. As we move through the course, I hope you can begin to see the value of theory and theorizing.