Comments on: The Metaphysical Club, 4

By: Matt Streckenbach

Matt Streckenbach — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:17:42 +0000

I would also agree that you can not figure out everything through mathematic’s. Because it does not always figure in the chance of random occasion’s, mostly because what we do not understand. Although it may be argued through math we may understand. Math simply does not prove everything in the universe. There is natural error in the universe and math can not figure that out itself. Much the same and human’s are not perfect, math can not figure out the perfect universe.

By: Erica Spurgeon

Erica Spurgeon — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:54:49 +0000

It seems so odd that two great minds such as the Pierces would work mainly on trying to find a link between math and science. While I do believe that there is somewhat of a link and while I do think that math can explain some things, I do not believe that everything can be expained by science. In high school my math teacher said that math was the easiest thing to learn and remember because unlike science, it never changed. Science is an always changing event. We are always discovering things and changing our minds and such and it seems like such a waste of the Pierces time to make a square fit into a circle.

By: William Schwartz

William Schwartz — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:32:24 +0000

I have to agree with Chase. I do not believe you can answer every thing with mathematics. At the time when Charles Pierce and his father had been working on this subject, any new idea was plausible. There is more to live and the creation of the Universe then mathematics can answer. The existence of life is more complex then anyone can explain.

By: Josh Kasper

Josh Kasper — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:30:28 +0000

Charles Pierce had a fascination between science and mathematics which was influenced from his father Benjamin Peirce. Charles wanted to prove like his father that the universe and the mind are linked together. Charles believed that people could not be individualistic, but everyone had free will. Through the advancements in math, statistics, and science in the law of errors it was concluded that knowledge was social. Charles believed that this idea was his key contribution to American thought.

By: Meghan Winter

Meghan Winter — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:48:03 +0000

Charles Peirce seems like his own worst enemy in the realm of thought. He attempts to hold to opposing thoughts about the spontaneity of life and the order and sense of the universe. He agreed with his father’s “faith that the world is constructed to be known by the mind” (195), but devoted his life to proving that the world was random and orderly at the same time.
His conclusion was that “in a universe in which events are uncertain and perception is fallible, knowing cannot be a matter of an indiviual mind ‘mirroring’ reality”(200). This coincides directly with the basis of pragmatism’s theory that no belief is justified by its correspondence with reality, because mirroring reality is not the purpose of having a mind.

By: richard Baker

richard Baker — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:11:15 +0000

Probabilities and statistics showed some interesting correlations between humanity, science and religion and raised some concerns as well about determinism. Calvin might have said “I told you” regarding PRE-determination and Charles Pierce seems to support it with statistics. But Darwin’s theory that chance upset the apple cart simply by pointing out what some already asked: what other forces are working to form society? Can different races have just appeared by chance of natural selection?
Mistaken observations play into the social equation and order in the universe to which transcendentalism and enlightenment movements alluded. Can we employ a pragmatic view matching uncertainty against certainty, tolerance v. intolerance, creationism v evolution and apply indifference?

By: Chase Hedrick

Chase Hedrick — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:01:44 +0000

Mathematics, along with Science, are heavily based on so called laws, or truths. However, as Darwin suggested,there is much randomness which also contributes to life, our world, and the rest of the universe. Peirce along with Agassiz may have been pioneers in their specific fields of study, however they themselves were very much flawed when it came to ideas of society, race, and human dignity. The sections discussing both Agassiz’s ice age theory, as well as Benjamin Peirce’s defense of slavery due to his beliefs on an African’s inability to think mathematically, are proof of “the law of errors,” which both Benjamin and Charles believed in.