C. S. Peirce and G. M. Searle: The Hoax of Infallibilism

• Autor(a) principal: Nubiola, Jaime
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
• Texto Completo: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13529
• topic: Falibilismo; Infalibilidade; Dogma; Catolicismo; Atitude científica; Charles S. Peirce; G.M. Searle; Fallibilism; Infallibility; Dogma; Catholicism; Scientific attitude; Charles S. Peirce; G.M. Searle

George M. Searle (1839-1918) and Charles S. Peirce worked together in the Coast Survey and the Harvard Observatory during the decade of 1860: both scientists were assistants of Joseph Winlock, the director of the Observatory. When in 1868 George, a convert to Catholicism, left to enter the Paulist Fathers, he was replaced by his brother Arthur Searle. George was ordained as a priest in 1871, was a lecturer of Mathematics and Astronomy at the Catholic University of America and became the fourth superior general of his congregation from 1904 to 1909. Among the books he wrote intended for non-Catholics was Plain Facts for Fair Minds (1895). On the 8th of August 1895, Peirce found that book in a bookstore and the following day wrote a letter to George Searle expressing strong about papal infallibility. This letter (L 397) is almost unknown amongst Peirce’s scholars.After describing these historical circumstances as a framework, the aim of my paper is to describe Peirce’s arguments against papal infallibility presented by George Searle in his book, and the contrast between the genuine scientific attitude and the putative metaphysical notion of absolute truth that is — according to Peirce — behind Searle’s defense of infallibility. In this sense, Peirce’s fallibilism will be explained with some detail, giving account also of his practical infallibilism.Finally, having in mind the present interest on Peirce’s religious ideas it will be suggested that some of Peirce’s ideas on infallibility are nearer to contemporary understanding of that issue than Searle’s defense.