JAS, List Again, JAS responds to my post but without the courtesy of referring to me by name. That is - I am assuming he is responding to my post since he specifically quotes from it. If he did so accidentally, and does not mean to refer to my analysis, then I apologize.
I stand by my outline of the problems with using metaphysics to analyze our reality. As Peirce outlines in the section to which JAS referred [for which I thank him for such] - "metaphysics most certainly provides teh foundation for the hypotheses with which the scientific mind analyzes the world, but, these hypotheses are ‘laboratory philosophy’ [1.129]’ rather than ’seminary philosophy’ [1.129]. And we must avoid the ‘crude and uncriticized metaphysics’ [1.129] and, as noted, not allow ‘metaphysics to ‘run loose’. As Peirce continues, ’the difficulty is to determine what really is and what is not the authoritative decision of common sense and what is merely obiter dictum’’ . In short, there is no escape from the need of a critical examination of ‘first principles’> [1.129] I therefore repeat my concern about the use of metaphysics to authorize belief; it rests on the three scientifically fragile methods of fixation of belief: tenacity,, authority and a priori rather than the only viable method of the scientific. And therefore, as Peirce clearly outlines in 1.129 cannot rest alone but can only form hypotheses which must be empirically and scientifically examined. And therefore - belief systems such as are found in religions, societal norms etc, are held by virtue of the three methods of tenacity, authority, a priori and are not subject to critique and thus cannot be held up as scientifically valid. They are beliefs - which may or may not contribute to the wellbeing of the human population but are not valid explanations of reality. And as such, quite frankly, should be examined as to whether they actually do contribute to the wellbeing of the human population which uses them, or are instead, as uncriticized, contributions to the fallibility of that population. Edwina > On Jan 15, 2026, at 10:55 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > I am puzzled by the disparagement of "a metaphysical approach" and the > accompanying claim that "its premises or conclusions" are "beliefs" that > "require an emotional commitment." According to Peirce, "For our present > purpose it is sufficient to say that the inferential process involves the > formation of a habit. For it produces a belief, or opinion; and a genuine > belief, or opinion, is something on which a man is prepared to act, and is > therefore, in a general sense, a habit. A belief need not be conscious" (CP > 2.148, 1902). In other words, beliefs are the habits of conduct that result > from inferential processes, so their role is no different in metaphysics vs. > any other science. After all, "Logic may be defined as the science of the > laws of the stable establishment of beliefs" (CP 3.429, 1896), and > "Metaphysics consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of logical > principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being" (CP > 1.487, c. 1896). > > Moreover, it is plainly false that "a metaphysical foundation" is equivalent > to "a foundation without empirical evidence." In Peirce's architectonic > classification, all the special sciences depend on metaphysics for principles > and supply metaphysics with data (see CP 3.427, 1896; RLT 114, 1898). The key > difference is that the special sciences are confined to "the reality of > existence" and thus study "facts, observable with a microscope or telescope, > or which require trained faculties of observation to detect," while > metaphysics is also concerned with "the reality of potential being" and > studies "those universal phenomena which saturate all experience through and > through so that they cannot escape us" (EP 2:35, 1898). Put another way, the > special sciences require "travel or other exploration, or some assistance to > the senses, either instrumental or given by training, together with unusual > diligence" (CP 1.242, 1902), while metaphysics "sets in order those > observations which lie open to every man [and woman] every day and hour" (CP > 7.538, 1899). > > Accordingly, Peirce's warning about those who dismiss metaphysics seems > pertinent here. > > CSP: Find a scientific man [or woman] who proposes to get along without any > metaphysics--not by any means every man [or woman] who holds the ordinary > reasonings of metaphysicians in scorn--and you have found one whose doctrines > are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with which > they are packed. ... Every man [and woman] of us has a metaphysics, and has > to have one; and it will influence his [or her] life greatly. Far better, > then, that that metaphysics should be criticized and not be allowed to run > loose. (CP 1.129, c. 1905) > > Jeff's outline <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2026-01/msg00010.html> > is commendable precisely because he is seeking to identify and criticize the > widely unrecognized metaphysical assumptions underlying the modern scientific > consensus about cosmology, and then offer viable alternatives for serious > consideration--one of which is a distinctively Peircean framework. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 9:25 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jack, list >> >> The problem I have with a metaphysical approach is that such are based on >> and require: belief. That is, the metaphysical approach can be extremely and >> totally valid, logically, but that doesn’t make its premises or conclusions >> objectively real. They remain to the core : beliefs- and require an >> emotional commitment and even, in many cases, an assertion of right vs the >> wrong beliefs of others…since, as noted, there is no objective proof. . >> >> We have seen the results of such in all rival conflicts, in religious >> authority, even - in societal and political norms and rules. >> >> The outline proposed by Jeff, on the other hand, requires not merely logic >> but also, evidentiary evidence for its conclusions. >> >> The question then moves to- does our species require such an approach to >> life, ie, does it require a metaphysical foundation? ..ie..a foundation >> without empirical evidence but one that rests purely on belief? >> >> Edwina >>> On Jan 15, 2026, at 6:40 AM, Jack Cody <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> GARY: In any event, I take your response as encouragement that this >>> logico-metaphysical line of thought is worth pursuing much further. The >>> fundamental idea can be rather simply expressed, but, I think, it may be >>> hard to comprehend without some investigative study, and its implications >>> have just begun to be explored: >>> >>> Continuity does not arise within time; rather, time, law, and cosmological >>> order arise within continuity. >>> >>> ME: Indeed, Gary, and Jon has made some valuable comments thereafter. Yes, >>> it's more than worthy of pursuit. Any viable metaphysics must deal with the >>> atemporal which one can indeed "prove" (infer necessarily). The framework >>> around the necessity of the atemporal, then, is what becomes vital. Jon and >>> I do not agree on certain, I'll call it "catechistic", issues, but he puts >>> God (who is atemporal if one believes in God, and also temporal, too) as >>> the ultimate source and thus that upon which, qua Truth, we would converge >>> (ultimately). Now if one is secular, we can swap out God for Truth >>> (qualitatively) and lose not so much (Augustinian in compatibilism here) >>> >>> I suppose what I'm saying is that whilst Jon and I have had numerous >>> disagreements, and in treatments of what is atemproal, no doubt, we won't >>> agree entirely, as it goes, I am happy (or more than happy) to see people >>> with the capacity to do so taking the atemporal necessity very seriously. >>> It's something that science simply cannot do (beyond time and space, >>> literally, is that which empirical methods and empirical meaning-making >>> materials can do very little to understand — instead, I argue, we must use >>> logic, and serious logic, to prove a necessary inference of the atemporal >>> and then it's a market place of ideas in terms of how we frame this within >>> extant metaphysical frameworks). Good to see this being done here, whether >>> I agree or not with framing — the endeavor is clearly ongoing. That's makes >>> me more than happy. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jack > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> > . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, > then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
