Abstract
Certain recent developments in mendacious manipulation of public discourse seem horrifying to the academic mind. The term post-truth newly describes a climate where ‘objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief’. Allegedly, humanity is experiencing, ‘a crash in the value of truth, comparable to the collapse of a currency or a stock’. Charles Peirce’s philosophy points towards ways that we might weather this epistemic storm, and perhaps even see it as inevitable in our intellectual and political development. This paper explores Peirce’s classic “four methods of fixing belief”: ‘tenacity’ ‘authority’, a priori speculation and the ‘method of science’—the last being the only method which is both public and self-correcting. Although in the West we proudly self-conceive as living in a ‘scientific age’, I shall argue that this self-conception is premature. Rather than ‘post-truth’, many tactics of recent media are more properly seen as belonging to a ‘pre-truth’ stage of human intellectual development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In 2016, Professor George Yancy of Emory University received a torrent of hate mail for comments he made in his research area of philosophy of race: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/the-perils-of-being-a-black-philosopher/. A graduate student instructor at Marquette University was targeted for abuse by a professor in her own institution for remarks in the classroom concerning sexual orientation, resulting in her personal details, such as her home address, being made public: http://dailynous.com/2017/05/05/judge-upholds-marquettes-suspension-prof-smeared-philosophy-phd-student/
- 2.
These included, That the absolutely impossible cannot be done by God, That the world is eternal [i.e. not created as the Bible says], and That the only wise men of the world are philosophers(!).
References
Anderson, J. (1935). University reform. Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 13(3), 215–222.
Coughlan, S. (2017). What does post-truth mean for a philosopher? http://www.bbc.com/news/education-38557838. Accessed January 12, 2017.
Crawford, M. (2016). The world beyond your head: On becoming an individual in an age of distraction. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Culley, T. (2017, January 24). Beall’s list: Gone but not lost. Publons. https://publons.com/blog/bealls-list-gone-but-not-lost/. Accessed September 19, 2017.
D’Ancona, M. (2017). Post-truth: The new war on truth, and how to fight back. London: Ebury Press.
Edmond, G. (2008). Judging the scientific and medical literature: Some legal implications of changes to biomedical research and publication. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 28(3), 523–561.
Epictetus, (1890). The discourses of Epictetus, with the Enchiridion and fragments. London: George Bell and Sons.
Frodeman, R., & Briggle, A. (2016). Socrates tenured: The institutions of 21st-century philosophy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23(6), 121–123.
Goldman, A. I. (1976). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 73, 771–791.
Griswold, C. (1988). Plato’s metaphilosophy: Why plato wrote dialogues. In C. Griswold (Ed.), Platonic writings, Platonic readings (pp. 143–167). New York: Routledge.
Haack, S. (1996). Preposterism and its consequences. Social Philosophy and Policy, 13(2), 296–315.
Haack, S. (2012). Out of step: Academic ethics in a preposterous environment. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2135732. Accessed August 27, 2017.
Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention economies. Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2), 327–333.
Mance, H. (2016, June 3). Britain has had enough of experts, says Gove. The Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c. Accessed September 19, 2017.
Misak, C. (2004). Truth and the end of inquiry: A Peircean account of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Misak, C. (2008). Pragmatism on solidarity, bullshit, and other deformities of truth. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 32(1), 111–121.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2016). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, November 12, pp. 1–15.
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers (Vol. 1–6). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Poole, S. (2017, May 18). What’s the opposite of post-truth? It’s not as simple as “the facts”. New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2017/09/sean-spicers-emmys-love-shows-how-little-those-power-fear-donald-trump. Accessed September 19, 2017.
Ronson, J. (2015). So you’ve been publically shamed. New York: Riverhead Books.
Rorty, R. (1995). Is truth a goal of enquiry? The Philosophical Quarterly, 45(180), 281–300.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Russell, B. (1939). Dewey’s new logic. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of John Dewey (pp. 135–156). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Schlick, M. (1934). The foundation of knowledge. Erkenntnis, 4, 370–387.
Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. London: Penguin.
Steup, M. (2005). Epistemology. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/. Accessed August 1, 2017.
Tesich, S. (1992) A government of lies. The Nation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Legg, C. (2018). ‘The Solution to Poor Opinions Is More Opinions’: Peircean Pragmatist Tactics for the Epistemic Long Game. In: Peters, M.A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., Besley, T. (eds) Post-Truth, Fake News. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8013-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8013-5_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-8012-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-8013-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)