WorkCharles Sanders Peirce

The Order of Nature

The instalment where the logic course turns to God: whether the universe is measurably more orderly than a world of pure chance.

by Charles Sanders Peirce27 passages held

  • English, the original language, and your language
First published
(aged 39)
Original language
English

Report a rights issue

Overview

Both ends of this paper are about religion, which is not what a series on the logic of science had led its readers to expect. It opens with the concession that no claim about the order of nature can avoid touching on belief. It closes with Peirce saying that he means to go on keeping Easter and Christmas, whatever he makes of the metaphysics mixed into them. Between those ends sits a question that sounds answerable and is not. Is the world we live in more orderly than a chance-world would be? John Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury in the last years of the seventeenth century, had put the standard case: a man could shake letters out of a bag for a very long time before they fell into a poem. Peirce grants it — the universe is not a chance-medley — and then shows that the orderliness cannot be measured. Any collection of things will display some uniformity if you hunt for one afterwards; the discovery counts only when the uniformity to be looked for was named in advance. So the quantity of order in nature is not a quantity, and the argument from design has nothing to stand on. Peirce is blunt about the consequence: the spirit of science, he says, is hostile to every religion but one like that of Étienne Vacherot, the French philosopher who worshipped a Perfect that he held could not exist. He also refuses to let his own conclusion be used against religion as such. In 1908 he came back to the question in a London quarterly, with an argument for the reality of God that he said the theologians had passed over.

Key concepts

What is the argument from design, in the version Peirce examines?

Archbishop Tillotson's: a man could shake letters out of a bag for a very long time before they fell into a poem, so the order around us cannot be accidental. Peirce grants the premiss outright — the universe is no chance-medley — and goes after the inference instead, which is what makes the paper unusual.

What is a 'chance-world', and why does Peirce need one?

A world of things thrown together with no regularity whatever — the comparison the design argument silently depends on. To call nature orderly is to say it is more orderly than that. Peirce's difficulty is that the comparison cannot be carried out: there is no scale on which the two worlds could be set side by side.

What counts as a 'uniformity' for Peirce here?

A character shared across a collection — and the trouble is that every collection whatever has some. Take any set of objects and enough characters with which to describe them, and regularities will appear. So the bare presence of uniformity in nature is evidence of nothing in itself, and the quantity of order turns out not to be a quantity.

Why must a character be named before the sample is drawn?

Because any sample is full of accidental agreements: the ages at death of the first five poets in Wheeler's Biographical Dictionary share an arithmetical oddity once you hunt for one. Designate a character beforehand, for its importance or obviousness, and two random samples will very likely agree on how often it occurs. That, Peirce says, is induction; a character noticed only afterwards can merely suggest that it may be prevalent.

Who was Vacherot, and why does Peirce name him?

Étienne Vacherot, a French philosopher who worshipped a Perfect that he held could not exist. Peirce says the spirit of science is hostile to every religion but one like his, which is the sharpest line in the essay. He then refuses to let his own verdict on design be turned into a case against religion as such.

Themes of the book

What this book returns to, gathered into themes and ordered by how much of the text each one occupies.

Order That Cannot Be Measured

Is the world we live in demonstrably more regular than one thrown together by chance? The question sounds answerable, and everything the argument from design claims depends on its being so.

Peirce grants the premiss — letters shaken from a bag for ages will not fall into a poem — and then denies the orderliness can be quantified. Any collection whatever will yield some uniformity to a searcher who goes looking afterwards; the discovery counts only when the regularity to be found was named in advance, and nature's never was. So the quantity of order is not a quantity, and design has nothing to stand on. He then refuses to let that verdict be used against religion.

  • natural law
  • chance
  • cosmology
  • design
  • theology
  • uniformity of nature
  • cosmic order
  • sampling
  • induction
  • religion
  • philosophy of religion
  • evidence
  • metaphysics

Within this work

passages held
27
distinct concepts
62
by passages held, corpus-wide
#746

What this book thinks together

The wheel takes this book’s leading concepts and shows how often they come up together. The wider the band between two, the more of its passages speak of both. Among them, most often together: “epistemology” and “induction”.
Concept co-occurrence, strongest first 8 concepts, joined by 16 pairings. 33 pairings reach beyond these concepts and are not drawn.
ConceptPaired conceptShared passages
epistemologyinduction6
chancelogic5
inductionprobability5
logicmetaphysics5
chancenatural law4
chancemetaphysics3
epistemologyprobability3
logicnatural law3
cosmologynatural law2
inductionlogic2
logicprobability2
chancecosmology1
cosmologyepistemology1
cosmologylogic1
epistemologynatural law1
metaphysicsnatural law1

Works held

The author's work in order, this book marked in place. Your-language title first, the original beneath it where the two differ; side chips show which full texts are held.

  1. 1867 On a New List of Categories

    The earliest item on this shelf, and the root of everything after it: the three-part scheme of quality, relation and representation reappears in the logic papers of 1877–78 and again in the evolutionary cosmology of the 1890s.

    EN
  2. 1868 Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man

    Where Peirce clears the ground. The four denials reached here — no intuition, no introspection, no thought without signs, no conception of the incognizable — are restated as premisses at the head of the sequel.

    EN
  3. 1868 Some Consequences of Four Incapacities

    The sequel, and where the argument arrives. The preceding article asked whether we have certain faculties; this one takes its four denials as premisses and follows them out to a theory of reality and of the self.

    EN
  4. 1877 The Fixation of Belief

    Written for readers with no philosophy behind them: the first instalment of a six-part course in the logic of science, serialised in a general-interest monthly. Everything the other 1877–78 papers do rests on the account of doubt, belief and inquiry set out here.

    EN
  5. 1878 Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis

    The paper that ends the series. Its central idea — guessing, treated as an inference with rules of its own rather than as a lack of them — is what Peirce kept working at for the rest of his life.

    EN
  6. 1878 How to Make Our Ideas Clear

    The second instalment of the 1877–78 series, nominally about a dead distinction in the logic textbooks. Two decades after it was printed, the American pragmatists took it as their charter.

    EN
  7. 1878 The Doctrine of Chances

    Third in the series, and the point where the account of inquiry acquires a price. Half of it is arithmetic — card packs, whist hands, insurance offices — and the other half asks whether a creature who never lives to complete a run of trials may reason from probabilities at all.

    EN
  8. 1878 The Order of Nature you are here EN
  9. 1878 The Probability of Induction

    A general magazine's readers are asked here to check a table of black and white balls for themselves. It is the most technical stretch of the 1877–78 series, and the one that takes on the probability textbooks directly.

    EN
  10. 1891 The Architecture of Theories

    A prospectus rather than a treatise, and the first of the five articles of Peirce's metaphysical series in Paul Carus's Monist, 1891–93 — the run in which the cosmology it sketches was built.

    EN
  11. 1892 Man's Glassy Essence

    Three things that do not obviously belong together — the constitution of matter, the chemistry of living tissue, and the question whether a church or a crowd can think — joined by the argument that mind and matter differ only in which side you look from.

    EN
  12. 1892 The Doctrine of Necessity Examined

    It stands second in the series, and it is the one that started a quarrel: Carus attacked it twice in his own journal and Peirce defended it once, so that the argument about chance occupied The Monist for fifteen months.

    EN
  13. 1892 The Law of Mind

    Where tychism acquires its partner. The chance of the April paper needed continuity to work in, and continuity gets its name and its defence here — the idea Peirce came to regard as the one his philosophy could least do without.

    EN
  14. 1893 Evolutionary Love

    Here the cosmology turns into an argument about how people ought to live: chance, necessity and love applied to the history of ideas, and to the ethics of a commercial century. It closed the Monist series.

    EN
  15. 1893 What is Christian Faith?

    Addressed past the theologians to two audiences at once — churchmen keeping their membership narrow, and the scientifically educated, shut out of the churches, who were talking about founding one of their own.

    EN
  16. 1899 Leibniz Rewritten

    The one book review on this shelf, from the years after the Coast Survey when Peirce lived partly by notices and dictionary work. It is the only piece here in which he is weighing someone else's system rather than building his own.

    EN
  17. 1908 A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God

    Thirty years after the logic papers and fifteen after the cosmology, Peirce turns the machinery of hypothesis on the question the 1878 series had left open.

    EN
Sign in or subscribe to discuss this work

— or open another of their works