OhioLINK History of Philosophy Website

Nineteenth-Century Philosophy
Micro Writing Assignment 6:
Macro Design Starters

Professor Gayle Ormiston

PLEASE:

1. place your name at the top of the screen with today's date
2. respond to each of the questions or prompts
3. print 2 (two) copies of your responses. TO PRINT: ALT-P.
4. raise your hand, if you have any difficulties

With respect to your reading of Whewell, Mill, Peirce, and James:

A. Questions:

1. Write a "question" that arises from your readings of W, M, P, and J, with respect to some topic.

2. What kind of question is your question? Identify only; this is not a request for an explanation.

KINDS Possible (for now):

1. ignorance: you lack knowledge or facts of specifics or specific sorts
2. doubt: your reading has left with "real" or "live" doubts, irritations regarding some X
3. dissonance: your reading has upset or conflicts with a previously held belief about X
4. exploration: you have some familiarity with X; your reading has stimulated you to inquire in more depth
5. insight: you have "understood" X but that understanding creates an "upset" of a different kind--you have more questions

3. Write a "conjecture" or an "hypothesis" that arises from your reading of W, M, P, and J, with respect to some topic.

4. For 3, which of the following holds:

1. My hypothesis or conjecture is in the mode of
   1. Whewell
   2. Mill
   3. Peirce
   4. James
2. My hypothesis or conjecture is
   1. live or dead
   2. forced or avoidable
   3. momentous or trivial
3. My hypothesis
   1. is a genuine option I would like to pursue or act upon
   2. is NOT a genuine option I would like to pursue or act upon.

1. Questions

1. Is there any similarity in the way W, M, P, and James define the concept of hypothesis? (doubt)
2. One question which arises due to my readings of Whewell, Mill, Peirce, and James is about the formation of an inductive conclusion. It still seems unclear to me as to how an inductive conclusion is formed, since all of the hypotheses seems to have some validity. Each time I read one conjecture, it seems correct; however, when I read the next, sometimes, opposed, hypothesis, it also seems to be correct. (exploration)
3. I have a question on the need for such in depth [sic] examination of the notions of hypthtesis [sic], it seems that anyone familiar with logic would have enough understanding of the concept that this explanation would be unnecessary. (ignorance)
4. When the beliefs of persons ar radically different, how can one know that his "point of departure for action" is the correct one in relation to the beliefs of others around him? (ignorance)
5. With respect to Whewell, Mill, Peirce, and James what is their view of hypothesis, their meaning and their use? (ignorance)
6. Does James think there is objective truth? Does belief establish truth? (ignorance)

1. There are similarities in the way W, M, P, and James interpret and define the concept of hypothesis. (James; live)
2. One conjecture which arises from my reading of Whewell, Mill, Peirce, and James is that in order to achieve understanding or to come to an inductive conclusion, one must first have some prior understanding of the subject, whether it be through experience or authority, in order to resolve any doubt within oneself because the doubt could not have arise without some previous experience. (Peirce; live, avoidable, momentous)
3. It would seem that all of these thinkers would want to implement the scientific method onto [sic] philosophy. (Whewell;?)
4. There can, perhaps, be other purposes of thought than just the production of beliefs. (Peirce; live, avoidable, trivial)
5. Is suspect that Whewell's theory of "hypothesis" is quite different from that of James. (??; living)
6. Mill is the only one that seems to think that there is truth in the facts themselves. The others are focussed on how facts are interpreted and there [sic] notions of hypothesis seems to be different than Mill's because they give primacy to the mind's creativity and the need for belief to soothe the irritations of doubt. (Peirce; live, forced, trivial)

3. New Questions and Conjectures Prompted, Forced by 4/26/95 Micro 6 results.

1. Questions:
2. Conjectures:

This page is part of the OhioLINK History of Philosophy Instructional Website designed and developed by the Department of Philosophy at Kent State University. We are interested in any comments you may have concerning this Micro Writing Exercise. Send e-mail to the KSU Department of Philosophy Instructional Website Development Team or directly to Professor Gayle Ormiston, who designed this exercise.

[ Return to the Spring 1995 (this class) Homepage ]

[ Return to the Nineteenth-Century Philosophy Homepage ]

[ Return to the OhioLINK History of Philosophy Homepage ]

Spring 1995.
KSU Department of Philosophy 

[ Test this page with BOBBY ]