Pragmatism

            The great Pragmatic thinkers, William James, Charles Sanders Pierce, George Herbert Mead, and John Dewey were influenced by other philosophers that wanted to account for things external to the mind as being as real as ideas.  They based their philosophical positions on empiricism rather than on ideas.  James noted that in our lives one is not merely aware of physical things, but one experiences physical things[1].  He was not the first to note this, but his Pragmatic philosophy was very much concerned about not just awareness of things, but the fact that one experiences things.  These things then must be as real as the one who is experiencing them. 

This approach to the uninitiated may seem confusing or it may seem to result in the no different conclusions that the Idealist has already made clear.  Again the Idealist and the Pragmatist may agree about what is a desirable result, but it is unlikely that they will agree on ‘how’ and ‘why’ to achieve the result.  The differences are more than cosmetic and deserve serious consideration. The empirical approach focuses on what one experiences rather than what one can know prior to experience. 

            The Pragmatist believes that problems exist in a physical world and resolution of these problems cannot be just a matter of adjusting one’s logic.  Problem resolution happens when one uses logic and verifies the results in one’s experience.  A Pragmatist gains knowledge through experience and confirms problem resolution through experience. 

            For the Pragmatist much of what can be known depends on what one calls knowledge.  For Charles Sanders Pierce knowing was made possible through different methods of determining what is believed to be true[2].  How does one determine something to be true, or more precisely how does one fix a belief?  Pierce suggests that there are only fours ways to fix a belief:

                        1. A priori – prior to experience – Faith

                        2. Appeal to Authority

                        3. Tenacity

                        4. Logic – Science

The first is the method of the Idealist.  Pierce is not attempting to ridicule any Idealists.  He is pointing out that Idealists know Jesus Christ is the Son God only by believing first that he is the Son of God.  It is not possible to experience Jesus as the Son of God until one believes that he is the Son of God.  Pierce is not suggesting that Jesus cannot be experienced as the Son of God; merely that one has to believe before the experience is possible.

The second, appeal to authority, is a common and useful method for those people who do not know everything.  When an inexperienced person takes a car to garage for repairs and the mechanic reports that the car needs all new fuel injectors the person may simply ask, “How much will it cost?”  The appeal to authority has already been made.  Most people can assume that mechanics are better authorities than they are on the mechanical needs of cars.  In fact, the appeal to authority may have happened before the car was taken to the garage.  It was made when the decision was made to trust the mechanic.

            The third method of determining what ought to be believed is tenacity.  If one has ever been in argument and knows one is wrong and continues to argue any, one knows what tenacity is.  Sometimes people believe something simply because they choose to believe it.  A baseball fan may believe that if the 1975 World Series were replayed the Boston Red Sox would win over the Cincinnati Reds.  Would this be based on improved pitching by the Red Sox?  Perhaps key hits by Carlton Fisk, or Jim Rice would make the difference?  “No, answers the fan, I just think the Red Sox would win this time.”  Here it is obvious that the person has no established reason, but the baseball fan has simply chosen to believe as he wishes because he has the prerogative to do so.

            Logic, the Peirce’s fourth method of fixing a belief, is synonymous with science.  This makes the logical process different from the logical process of the Idealist.  The Idealist uses logic to validate ideas.  These ideas are validated when the logic does not fail.  The Pragmatist, however, must be able to verify the logical experience through experience.  This means that the scientific method is both logical and empirical.  This is what makes social sciences science.  In social science one is not speculating on the original or founding idea, one learns of these ideas through experience.

            The Idealist does not use experience as the foundation for knowledge.  To believe that God is the creator one must first believe that there is a God.  The only means by which one can believe there is a God is by faith.  The Pragmatist attempts to avoid this dilemma by reflecting upon experience and gaining knowledge of the experience.  One may argue that is what the Idealist does.  The Idealist looks at the universe and determines that it must have been created.  While this appears to be logical it is not empirical.  Unfortunately for the Idealist other ideas are introduced as well.  Since there is a God, this God must be the type of God the Idealist’s religion professes.  Carl Sagan was fond of saying because it appears that the universe was created gives no proof that God is a personal God[3]. 

            Of course Idealists will argue that they experience God internally and that this experience is as real as any other experience.  William James in one of his books, Varieties of Religious Experience, recognized that one has religious experiences, but the Pragmatists refer to verifiability of experience.  The woman who opens her oven and sees Jesus sitting on a biscuit has had a religious experience, but can she share that experience with anyone else.  For the Pragmatist it is not sufficient to have an experience to validate the experience.  Validation is essential and can happen only when others can share the experience.  Anyone looking over the shoulder of the women seeing Jesus sitting on a biscuit will not be able to see the same thing.  Therefore, the experience is not validated.  Knowledge for the Pragmatist is verified through shared experiences. 

            It does not mean that religious experiences have no meaning.  Religious experiences can be very significant to any individual.  What it does mean for the Pragmatist is that one’s religious beliefs based upon religious experiences cannot be used to accomplish the same ends as beliefs that are verifiable through a common experience.