Survey the Sciences Before You Build
Most philosophies are improvised from whatever single idea struck their author as fruitful. Before any foundation is laid, Peirce wants an inventory of what dynamics, thermodynamics, statistics and geometry have actually established.
The house of paper is the case in miniature: pasteboard foundations, roofing-paper roof and paraffined windows would teach a builder a great deal and be unfit to live in. Non-Euclidean geometry had just cost the axioms their claim to exactness and Darwin had made evolution a matter of chance and the destruction of bad results, so a system assembled in ignorance of either is built from materials of unknown strength. What is offered first is a method for the discipline, and only then a cosmology.
- philosophical method
- philosophy of science
- scientific explanation
- non-euclidean geometry
- geometry
- mathematical generalization
- darwinism
- psychology
- metaphysics
- infinity
- philosophy of space
Enter a dialogue
- A man convinced paper is a good material builds a house of it, with pasteboard foundations and paraffined-paper windows. What does that house say about most philosophies?
- Galileo leaned on common sense and “the light of nature” more than on experiment. Why does that suit mechanics but fail farther from everyday things?
- You say nobody can be justified in concluding that a triangle’s angles add up to exactly 180 degrees. What should philosophers learn from geometry losing its exactness?
- Nobody can survey every science before philosophising. Isn't the demand a way of deferring the work indefinitely?
- You read Darwin’s evolution as chance plus the destruction of bad results, and Lamarck’s rival theory as habit and effort. Why does that difference matter beyond biology?