Rauch on Peirce (Wrong 3)

In my first post about Fallibilism I mentioned that Charles Sanders Peirce didn’t provide a lot of detail about the Method of Scientific Investigation, which is the fourth and best method of fixing belief. In my second post I devoted a bit of space to discussing what Peirce called the A Priori Method, which is the third method on his list. As Peirce makes very plain, it’s also the most slippery and deceptive, in that it seems reasonable on its face but can spackle over a lot of faulty logic and questionable assumptions.Jonathan Rauch, who first made me aware of Peirce’s philosophy in his book The Constitution of Knowledge, has read more deeply into this topic than I have. He dropped me a line the other day to provide some clarification of how the A Priori Method differs from the Method of Scientific Investigation. As a reminder, these two methods are superficially the same in that both of them eschew the methods of Tenacity and Authority, which are obviously irrational. Both A Priori and Scientific Investigation purport to base beliefs upon rational analysis of observable facts. What then is the difference between them?

Here’s a quote from Jonathan Rauch:

I thought I'd address a question you allude to re the difference between the "a priori" method of settling opinion vs science. Here's how I understand it...

A priori methods are superficially similar to science, in that they posit hypotheses and use evidence and rational argument. But they're still fundamentally individualistic. Individuals, or factions, form conclusions and argue with each other, but even if they're brilliant, they have no systematic way to bring their views toward consilience (a collective, multi-perspective resolution). Whereas science is inherently a collective endeavor in which, as Peirce says, only "we" matter, not you or I. Knowledge arises as an emergent phenomenon from the comparing and collating of multiple points of view. Though he didn't have the term, Peirce invented network epis…