THE PROPOSAL OF PRAGMATISM

ABSTRACT:
Peirces, William Jamess and John Deveys are the representatives of pragmatism.
Pragmatism is a method of philosophy begun by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914),
popularized by William James (1842-1910), and associated with two other major early
representatives, John Dewey (1859 1952) and George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). This paper
explains the pragmatist view of the Peirces, William Jamess and John Deveys and how they
affect to and affected by other philosophers.
DEFINITION OF PRAGMATISM
Pragmatism is essentially an American philosophical movement that has come to
prominence during the last hundred years. It has been called a new name for an old way of
thinking. It strongly reflects some of the characteristics of American life. Pragmatism is a
method of philosophy begun by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), popularized by William
James (1842-1910), and associated with two other major early representatives, John Dewey
(1859 1952) and George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). Pragmatism was defined in 1878 by
Peirce as follows: Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings, we
conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the
whole of our conception of the object. Pragmatism is an attitude, a method, and a philosophy
that uses the practical consequences of ideas and beliefs as a standard for determining their
value and truth. Pragmatism seeks to mediate between the empirical and idealist traditions and
to combine what is most significant in each of them. William James defined pragmatism as
the attitude of looking away from first things, principles, categories, supposed necessities;
and of looking towards last things, fruits, consequences, facts.
Pragmatism places greater emphasis on method and attitude than on a systematic
philosophical doctrine. It is the method of experimental inquiry extended into all realms of
human experience. Pragmatism uses the modern scientific method as the basis of a
philosophy. Its affinity is with the sciences, especially the biological and social sciences, and
it aims to utilize the scientific spirit and scientific knowledge to deal with all human
problems, including those of ethics and religion. As a movement in philosophy, pragmatism
was founded for the purpose of mediating between two opposing tendencies in nineteenth
century thought. There was empiricism and science, to which Darwins theory of evolution
had contributed the most recent description of which human beings are. This tradition looked
at the world and humans as parts of a mechanical or biological process in which the mind was

an observer. There was also the tradition coming from Descartes and his rationalism and
moving through the critical idealism of Kant, the absolute idealism of Hegel, and later
romantic thought. In this, the human mind had enormous power, so that philosophers
proceeded to construct theories about the whole nature of things, ending up with a block
universe. Between these two traditions there was a gulf. From the scientific point of view,
rationalist and idealist philosophies lacked objective evidence to support their claims. From
the rational and idealist points of view, the assumptions of science were a threat to the
humanistic side and the moral and religious convictions of human beings. Pragmatism sought
to mediate between these two traditions. The pragmatists said that philosophy in the past had
made the mistake of looking for ultimates, absolutes, eternal essences, substances, fixed
principles, and metaphysical block systems. The pragmatists emphasized empirical science
and the changing world and its problems, and nature as the reality beyond which we cannot
go. For John Dewey, experience is central. Experience is the result of the interaction of the
organism with its environment. Although the idea of experience for the pragmatists was not
limited to sense experience, nonetheless they agreed with the empirical tradition that we
have no conception of the whole of reality, that we know things from many perspectives, and
that we must settle for a pluralistic approach to knowledge.

FOUNDERS OF PRAGMATISM

CHARLES S. PEIRCE AND HIS PRAGMATISM

Charles S. Peirce called the founder of pragmatism, was influenced by Kant and
Hegel. Peirce considered that problems, including those of metaphysics, could be solved if
one gave careful attention to the practical consequences of adherence to various ideas.
Pragmatism is sometimes said to have originated in 1878, when Peirce published the article
How To Make Our Ideas Clear. The philosophical writings of Peirce consist of essays and
manuscripts, many of which are fragmentary or incomplete. Although he never wrote a book
in philosophy or organized his thoughts into systematic or final form, his literary activity
covered many years. With the publication of his papers in recent decades, interest in Peirces
philosophy is increasing, and he is coming to be recognized as an intellectual genius of
outstanding originality. He was the rare combination of a natural scientist with a laboratory
habit of mind, a careful student of philosophy, and a man with strong moral convictions. He
is sometimes referred to as a philosophers philosopher, rather than a public or popular
philosopher, such as James.

Peirce was primarily a logician concerned with the more technical problems of logic
and epistemology, and the methods of the laboratory sciences. He was interested in deductive
systems, methodology in the empirical sciences, and the philosophy behind the various
methods and techniques. His logic included a theory of signs and symbols, a field in which he
did pioneer work. He viewed logic as a means of communication and a cooperative or public
venture. His approach was to invite critical examination and seek aid from others in a
continuous quest for the clarification of ideas. Peirce wished to establish philosophy on a
scientific basis and to treat theories as working hypotheses. He called his approach
pragmaticism. One of Peirces main contributions to philosophy is his theory of meaning. He
coined the word pragmatism from the Greek word pragma (act or deed) to emphasize the
fact that words derive their meanings from actions. He set forth one of the first modern
theories of meaning by proposing a technique for the clarification of ideas. The meaning of
many ideas, Peirce said, is best discovered by putting them to an experimental test and
observing the results. His criterion of meaningfulness was to appeal to the way an object
would behave if it had a certain character or were of a certain kind. If an object were hard it
would scratch other objects; if it were volatile, it would evaporate rapidly, and the like.
Peirce argued that thinking always occurs in a context, not in isolation. Meanings are derived
not by intuition but by experience or experiment. For these reasons, meanings are not
individual or private but are social and public. If there is no way of testing an idea by its
effects or public consequences, it is meaningless. To be able to distinguish between
meaningful and meaningless is particularly important, Peirce thought, when you are
considering opposing systems of thought. Peirces empiricism is intellectualistic rather than
voluntaristic; that is, emphasis is on the intellect and understanding rather than on will and
activity. The irritation of doubt leads to the struggle to attain belief. The end of this inquiry,
which aims to dispel doubt, is knowledge. Thus he does not stress sensation or volition as
much as do later forms of popular pragmatism.
Peirce is critical of positivism and mechanistic determinism, on the one hand, and
intuitionism and a priori principles, on the other hand. Although he shares some of the
positivists views, he does not share with them the idea that empiricism requires a denial of
the possibility of metaphysics. Peirce supports fallibilism; even the most intelligent people
are apt to be mistaken. Progressive inquiry leads to constant modification. There is chance
(tychism) because, Peirce maintained, although nature behaves in a lawlike way, that
regularity is never exact. Chance, as well as habit, plays a real part in the occurrence of events
in the world. Fallibilism and an open future replace skepticism and absolutism, and

pragmatism replaces fixed systems of belief in philosophy and in science. Although Peirce
gave his major attention to logic and methodology, his writings make clear that he left a place
for an evolutionary idealism that stresses the need for a principle of love opposed to any
narrow individualism in human affairs.
THE FIXATION OF BELIEF
Peirce outlined four methods, ordered from least to most successful in achieving a
secure fixation of belief:
1. The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) which brings comforts
and decisiveness, but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others' views,
as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. The method goes against the social
impulse and easily falters since one may well fail to avoid noticing when another's
opinion is as good as one's own initial opinion. Its successes can be brilliant but tend
to be transitory.
2. The method of authority which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally.
Its successes can be majestic and long-lasting, but it cannot regulate people thoroughly
enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn about other
societies present and past.
3. The method of the a priori which promotes conformity less brutally but fosters
opinions as something like tastes, arising in conversation and comparisons of
perspectives in terms of "what is agreeable to reason." Thereby it depends on fashion
in paradigms and goes in circles over time. It is more intellectual and respectable but,
like the first two methods, sustains accidental and capricious beliefs, destining some
minds to doubt it.
4. The method of science the only one whereby inquiry can, by its own account, go
wrong (fallibilism), and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves
itself.

WILLIAM JAMES AND HIS PRAGMATISM

William James (18421910) was born in New York City in a home where there was
spirited and wide-ranging discussion that stimulated free intellectual growth. James became
an original thinker; he read widely in the literature of experimental psychology and studied
the works of John Stuart Mill, Kant, and Hegel. From 1855 to 1860, he studied in England,
France, Switzerland, and Germany. His interests shifted from painting to natural science and

medicine, to psychology, and then to philosophy. From 1872 until his death, he taught at
Harvard University, first in physiology, then psychology, and finally philosophy. He wrestled
with questions such as: What does it mean to be a human being? To what extent are humans
free? How do ideas affect our lives? We need, James thought, to exercise a will to believe.
James was a highly social person whose friends, including Oliver Wendell Holmes and Ralph
Waldo Emerson, formed an influential intellectual community. He gave public lectures,
became a leader in the movement known as pragmatism, and wrote a number of books that
are classics in American philosophy.
A complete discussion of the people who influenced William James would take us
back to Lange, Mach, Pearson, and Renouvier as well as to Peirce; we will have to be content
with a mere mention of these names. The rapid development of pragmatism was due largely
to the fertile soil it found in America and to the brilliant exposition made by William James.
In his book Pragmatism, James contrasts the tender-minded rationalist, who usually has an
idealistic and optimistic outlook, with the tough-minded empiricist, the lover of facts, who is
often a materialist and a pessimist. To both of these James says, I offer the oddly-named
thing pragmatism as a philosophy that can satisfy both kinds of demands. It can remain
religious like the rationalisms, but at the same time, like the empiricisms, it can preserve the
richest intimacy with facts.
RADICAL EMPIRICISM
James defines the term radical empiricism this way: I say empiricism because it is
contented to regard its most assured conclusions concerning matters of fact as hypotheses
liable to modification in the course of future experience. He says, To be radical, an
empiricism must neither admit into its constructions any element that is not directly
experienced, nor exclude from them any element that is directly experienced. James includes
relations, such as greater than, among the latter (directly experienced) elements. Pragmatism,
as we have seen, is the practice of looking toward results and facts instead of toward first
principles and categories. It accepts the experiences and facts of everyday life as fundamental.
Reality is just what it is experienced as beingflux or change. Because experience is
fragmentary, pragmatists find things partly joined and partly disjoined, and accept them as
they are. Consequently, they insist that reality is pluralistic rather than monistic or dualistic.
There is the giventhe data of the senses which is brought in as stimuli from the region
beyond us. Added to this is the interpretative element, which the conscious being supplies.
The creative whole of experience, which includes both the given and the interpretative

element, is the one reality we know. Knowledge is thus based directly on sense perception, or
experience, which constitutes the continuous, flowing stream of consciousness.
JAMES THEORY OF TRUTH
William James said, Truth happens to an idea. What was so startling about this
statement was that the more traditional theories of truth took virtually the opposite view
namely, that truth was a fixed or static relation. When James examined the traditional theories
of truth, he demanded to know what truth means in operation. Truth must be the cash value
of an idea. What other motive could there be for saying that something is true or not than to
provide guides for practical behavior? James would ask, What concrete difference will it
make in life? A difference that makes no difference is no difference, but only a matter of
words. An idea becomes true or is made true by events. An idea is true if it works or if it has
satisfactory consequences. Truth is relative; it also grows. The true is the expedient in the
way of our thinking, just as the right is the expedient in the way of our behaving. Ideas,
doctrines, and theories become instruments to help us meet life situations; doctrines are not
answers to riddles. A theory is created to suit some human purpose, and the only satisfactory
criterion of the truth of a theory is that it leads to beneficial results. Workability, satisfactions,
consequences, and results are the key words in the pragmatic conception of truth.
PRAGMATIC VIEW OF MORALITY
Within Jamess view, morality, like truth, is not fixed but grows out of present life
situations. The source and authority for beliefs and conduct are found in human experience.
The good is that which makes for a more satisfactory life; the evil is that which tends to
destroy life. James was a strong defender of moral freedom and indeterminism; he believed
that determinism is an intellectualistic falsification of experience. He supported the doctrine
of meliorism, which holds that the world is neither completely evil nor completely good but
is capable of being improved. Human effort to improve the world is worthwhile and fruitful,
and the trend of biological and social evolution is toward such improvement.
THE WILL TO BELIEVE
James devoted considerable attention to religion. The doctrines of pluralism and
meliorism, as well as the doctrine of the will to believe, all contributed to his views of religion
and of God. He acknowledged later that the will to believe might have been called the
right to believe. Let us consider first Jamess doctrine of the will to believe. Consciousness
displays interest, desire, and attention; it is volitional as well as sensory, and the will rather
than the intellect is determinative. The will determines how and what we experience; thus

thinking is empirically secondary to willing. What is selected and emphasized is thereby made
vital and real; thus, the world we experience is largely of our own making. As with our
sensory perceptions, so with our ideas. Those ideas that interest us and engage our attention
tend to exclude others and to dominate the scene; and these ideas tend to find expression in
our actions. In life, individuals have to make numerous decisions. How are they to make these
decisions and formulate their beliefs? In some situations the evidence is reasonably certain
and clear, and in these circumstances they need to act in accordance with the evidence. In
other situations, in which a choice between the proposed lines of action either is not forced or
is trivial, they can postpone their decisions or even refrain from choosing at all. There are still
other situations, however, in which individuals facing some crucial issue must choose and act,
because failure to decide will commit them to one of the alternatives. If such issues are living,
forced, and momentous, people need to act even though they do not have all the evidence on
the basis of which they would like to make their decisions. James doctrine of the will to
believe applies to this third type of situation, where some decision is demanded by the
structure of the situation. For example, shall I marry this woman (or man) or shall I wait until
I know for certain how the marriage will turn out? I cannot know for certain that the marriage
will be harmonious and successful. All the facts are not known and I cannot wait until all the
evidence is in, yet the issue is living, forced, and momentous. To fail to act is in itself a
decisionnot to marry this person at this time. When the will to believe leads to decision and
action, it leads to discovery and conviction, or to truth and value simply through the fact that
the will exists. Lifes values are empirical and are found and tested in the process of living.
According to James, in many of lifes experiences, we have contact with a More.
We feel that which is sympathetic and gives us support. We rely on it in worship and in
prayer. This sense of the More brings comfort, happiness, and peace; furthermore, it is an
almost universal experience. In the religious sense, God is the name of this ideal tendency or
encompassing support in human experience. James, as we have seen, was impressed by the
novelty, freedom, individuality, and diversity inherent in our world. Consequently, he insisted
that God is finite. There are real possibilities for evil as well as for good in our world; no
good, all-powerful God could have created the world as we know it. God is, however, moral
and friendly, and we can cooperate with God in creating a better world.

JOHN DEWEY AND HIS PRAGMATISM

John Dewey (18591952) was born in Burlington, Vermont, and grew from a shy
youth to a man whose influence spread throughout the world. After his graduation from the

University of Vermont, he taught classics, science, and algebra for a short time in high school
and later received his Ph.D. degree from The Johns Hopkins University. He taught for ten
years at the University of Michigan, for a short period at the University of Minnesota, and for
ten years at the University of Chicago. In 1904, he went to Columbia University and remained
on the staff there until his retirement in 1930. John Dewey was a defender of the democratic
process and an outspoken champion of social reform. He wanted to make philosophy relevant
to the practical problems and affairs of humanity. He lectured in the United States and in a
number of other countries. He was in Beijing, the capital of China, for two years lecturing and
aiding in the reorganization of the educational system. He spent shorter periods in Japan,
Turkey, Mexico, and Russia. After his retirement, Dewey remained active and continued to
write many articles and books not only on philosophy and logic but also on art, education,
science, and social and political reform. He was a leader in various humanitarian causes.
The continued growth and strength of pragmatism can be attributed to John Deweys
prolific writings and his application of the principles of the movement to all phases of life and
thought. Dewey achieved prominence in logic, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and political,
economic, and educational philosophies. For Dewey and his many followers, the term
instrumentalism is preferred to the term pragmatism, but both are used. Dewey was a keen
and a constant critic of the classical or traditional types of philosophies, with their search for
ultimate reality and their attempt to find the immutable. Such philosophies, Dewey claimed,
attempt to minimize or transcend human experience. In The Quest for Certainty, Dewey says
that we have used two methods to escape dangers and gain security. One is to appease or
conciliate the powers around us by ceremonial rites, sacrifices, supplication, and so on. The
second is to invent tools to control the forces of nature to our advantage. This is the way of
science, industry, and the arts, and it is the way Dewey approves. The aim of philosophy is the
better organization of human life and activity here and now. Interest thus shifts from
traditional metaphysical problems to the methods, attitudes, and techniques for scientific and
social progress. The method is that of experimental inquiry as guided by empirical research in
the area of values.
EXPERIENCE AND THE CHANGING WORLD
Experience is one of the key words in Deweys pragmatic theory. Deweys philosophy
is of and or daily experience. In his essay The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy, Dewey
sets down his criticisms of the traditional or inherited view of experience as found in
empiricism and offers a substitute interpretation. The orthodox empirical view regards
experience primarily as a knowledge affair. Dewey prefers to see experience as an affair of

the intercourse of a living being with its social and physical environment. 7 Experience for
Dewey is primarily experimental and is not tied to what has been or what is given;
experience involves an effort to change the given by reaching forward into the unknown.
Dewey refuses to attempt to transcend human experience or to believe that anyone else has
ever succeeded in doing so. In the past, philosophers attempted to discover some theoretical
super experience on the basis of which they might build a secure and meaningful life. Dewey
insists that experience is not a veil that shuts man off from nature; it is the only means we
have of penetrating further into the secrets of nature. This present world of men and women,
of fields and factories, of plants and animals, of bustling cities and struggling nations, is the
world of our experience. We should try to understand it and then attempt to construct a
society in which all can grow in freedom and intelligence. Dewey takes evolution, relativity,
and the time process seriously. The world is in the making; it is constantly moving forward.
This view of the world stands in marked contrast to that of a fixed and permanent reality,
which dominated Greek and medieval thinking and has characterized many areas of modern
science. Dewey was born in 1859, the year Darwin published Origin of Species. Not since
Aristotle has any philosopher built his or her thought so completely on biological foundations.
The vision of human beings as always changing and developing in the midst of an
environment that fosters and at the same time threatens their lives was decisive for Dewey.
Organism and environment, development and struggle, precariousness and stabilitythese
are the basic elements that humans face. Dewey put these elements together in the unifying
idea of experience. According to Dewey, we live in an unfinished world. Deweys attitude can
best be understood by an examination of three aspects of what we call his instrumentalism.
First, the Notion of temporalism means that there is real movement and progress in time. We
can no longer hold a spectator view of reality. Our knowledge does not merely mirror the
world; it reshapes and changes it. Second, the notion of futurism bids us to look mainly to the
future and not to the past. The future, which is growing out of the past, will not be a repetition
but will be in some sense novel. Third, meliorism is the view that the world can be made
better by our efforts, a view also held by William James.
THE METHOD OF INTELLIGENCE
Basic to Deweys philosophy is the instrumental theory of ideas, the use of
intelligence as a method. Thinking is biological; it is concerned with the adjustment between
an organism and its environment. All thinking and all concepts, doctrines, logics, and
philosophies are, in Deweys words, part of the protective equipment of the race in its
struggle for existence. Reflective thinking occurs when we face a problem or when our

habits are blocked in particular crises. Intelligence is an instrument for the individual or
society to gain some goal. There is no separate mind stuff gifted with a faculty for thinking.
Mind is manifested in our capacity to respond to what is doubtful or problematic in
experience. Knowing and acting are continuous. Knowing occurs within nature, and sensory
and rational factors cease to be competitors and are both parts of a unifying process. Ideas are
plans of action. Scientific theories, like other tools and instruments, are created by us in
pursuit of particular interests and goals. The aim of thinking is to remake experienced reality
through the use of experimental techniques.
FREEDOM AND CULTURE
According to Deweys pragmatic outlook, humans and nature always are
interdependent. We are not part body and part mind; we are naturalized within nature, and
nature is so interpreted as to take account of us. Nature in humans is nature grown intelligent.
Nature is neither rational nor irrational; it is intelligible and understandable. Nature is not
something merely to be accepted and enjoyed; it is something to be modified and
experimentally controlled. Dewey and the modern instrumentalists have been staunch
defenders of freedom and democracy. Dewey was a defender of moral freedom or freedom
of choiceof intellectual freedom, and of the political and civil liberties, including freedom
of speech, of press, and of assembly. He advocated an extension of the democratic principles
in the political and social realms to all races and classes.
BASIC PRINCIPLES IN THE PRAGMATIC THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
"The epistemological point of departure in this study can be summarized in a few points.
1. Man is primarily an actor, living and acting in a bio-physical, a socio-cultural and a
subjective world.
2. Living and acting in the three worlds constitutes the a priori of human knowledge.
3. Since living and acting constitutes the a priori of knowledge, knowledge is constructed
in such a way that an application of well constructed knowledge will directly or
indirectly serve living and acting.
4. When knowledge becomes part of an acting system, it functions as an internal action
determinant.
5. There is a continuous interaction between knowledge and action so that knowledge is
created in and through action and so that experiences that the actor acquires through
action influences subsequent action.
6. Value-knowledge, factual knowledge, and procedural knowledge are three types of
knowledge connected to the three types of internal action determinants. Having value-

knowledge means knowing what fulfils the criteria of good values. Having factual
knowledge means having true beliefs about the three worlds in which one is living.
Having procedural knowledge means knowing how to carry out a specific act or act
sequence.
7. Knowledge can be unarticulated or articulated. Unarticulated knowledge is, for
instance, tacit knowledge, familiarity, knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge can be
articulated in everyday language, science and art."

SUMMARY
Pragmatism has grown out of certain aspects of living, especially of contemporary
American life. It is an expression of the mood of America, of the emphasis of modern
technological society on getting things done and on satisfactory consequences. Pragmatism
attempts to bring philosophy down to earth and to deal with the living issues of the day.
According to Dewey, the aim of philosophy should be the improvement of human life and its
environment, or the organization of life and its activities to meet human needs. We need, he
says, a philosophy that makes life better here and now; the world is in the making, and our
efforts will in part shape the future. If we accept the melioristic attitude and believe that life
can be made better, we are more likely to create a better world. We need to face the facts of
experience and to discover and live by those principles that stand the test of time and of daily
living. According to pragmatism, our knowledge does not merely mirror or reflect the world;
thinking is a creative process that reshapes the world. Ideas and doctrines are instrumental and
serve the process of adjustment between the organism and its environment. Beliefs are
developed and tested by experimental methods and experience. Pragmatism has generated a
liberal habit of mind and a beneficial enthusiasm for social progress. Most pragmatists have
been keen supporters of democracy and human freedom. However, pragmatism has had
various criticisms directed against it. Some people assert that pragmatism has an inadequate
metaphysics.
Pragmatists are likely to claim that speculations regarding the ultimate nature of reality
misdirect our energies away from concrete problems. Pragmatists use scientific methods of
inquiry and distrust traditional metaphysics, which rests on the spectator attitude toward the
world. If the pragmatists stress experience and assert that reality is as it is experienced and
that nature is to some extent created by people, they move in the direction of the subjective
forms of idealism. However, if they stress the objective independent world, they move in the
direction of realism. Another criticism is that pragmatism has an inadequate view of mind.

Mind is undoubtedly a biological aid to survival, as the pragmatists claim. However, some
people believe that mind is much more than an instrument for satisfying the practical needs of
food, clothing, and shelter. People are problem solvers but they also function in the realm of
aesthetic contemplation and of ideas and ideals. We ask about the why and not only about
the how of things. Some critics think that the instrumentalist view of mind as merely a
description of certain kinds of behavior is unsatisfactory. Critics also attack the pragmatic
view that the discovery of truth is conditioned by human inquiry and that truth has no
independent existence. Pragmatists may commit a fallacy when they say that true
propositions work in the long run means that all propositions that work are true. As truth is
ordinarily understood, we do not think of ourselves as creating it by living correctly;
on the contrary, we live correctly by grasping and following the truth.

REFERENCES
1. Between Peirce (1878) And James (1898): G. Stanley Hall, The Origins Of
Pragmatism, And The History Of Psychology, David E. Leary, Journal of the History
of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 45(1), 520 Winter 2009
2. Pragmatisms (Plural) Part I: Classical Pragmatism and Some Implications for
Empirical Inquiry, James L.Webb, Journal Of Economc Issues, Vol. XLI No. 4
December 2007
3. Pragmatism(S) Plural, Part II:From Classical Pragmatism To Neo-Pragmatism, James
L. Webb, Journal Of Economic Issues, Vol. XLV I No. 1 March 2012
4. Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory: Social Philosophy Today, Roberto Frega,
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
5. Pragmatsm: A New Name For Some Old Ways Of Thnkng, William James, 1907
6. Perspectives on the History of Pragmatism, A Critical History of Pragmatism, Peter H.
Hare
7. What Good is a (Indeed, This) History of Pragmatism?, Alan Richardson
8. The Contribution Of Pragmatism To Understanding Educational Action Research:
Value And Consequences, Michael Hammond, Institute of Education, University of
Warwick, Coventry, UK Published online: 03 Oct 2013
9. Pragmatism, Metaphysics, and Bioethics: Beyond a Theory of Moral Deliberation,
Matthew Pamental, Journal Of Medicine And Philosophy, 38: 725742, 2013
10. Hstorcsm In Pragmatsm: Lessons In Hstorography And Phlosophy, Coln
Koopman, Metaphilosophy, Vol.41. No.5, October 2010
11. Peirce, Pragmatism, and The Right Way of Thinking, Philip L. Campbell