This paper offers a new interpretation of Peirce’s “The Fixation of Belief,” one that pays special attention to the notion of what it is for a belief to be fixed or stable. Drawing on Louis Loeb’s stability-centered readings of the epistemologies of Descartes and Hume, I suggest that Peirce’s argument does not deploy a Cartesian notion of permanently stable belief. It instead relies on a comparatively modest Humean notion, according to which a fixed belief is stable for a given inquirer at a given time. A belief is settled if it resists being undermined too readily by experience and reflection. I try to show how such a reading allows Peirce to object to unscientific methods of fixing belief purely on grounds of their ineffectiveness. I try also to show how Peirce establishes the superior effectiveness of the method of science at delivering stable beliefs in the relevant sense.


Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.