ese two works is obvious, although they do contain some similarities in the things conclude. Pierces theory assumes reality while Nagels, or rather Descartes theory, doubts it. This is the main contrast of the two theories, since the veracity of reality is the underlying idea in both works. While the pragmatist approach assumes science as the only method presenting any distinction of a right and wrong way (Pierce 52), the Cartesian approach assumes nothing beyond the mind, science just being another set of observations on a reality that we can never observe directly (Nagel 14). Every method of coming to a belief that Pierce presents, assumes a reality, yet explores virtually nothing of the nature of reality. In Pierces final discussion of the method of science, he assumes the reliability of facts, the same facts Nagel refutes through the beginning of his argument. The pragmatists approach starts with known and observed facts to proceed to the unknown (Pierce 53), whereas the Cartesian approach begins assuming the unknown, and proceeds to try and verify the reality of these know and observed facts. In this sense, it seems Nagels Cartesian approach is far more metaphysical in nature; it serves to deal with knowledge in terms of our experience of our reality. Pieces pragmatist approach is far more epistemological in that it delves into the nature of our knowledge: the origins of our beliefs. To compare the two approaches under the same category of epistemology though, one could classify Pierces pragmatism under the school of rationalism, in that he deals with structures of reason in his rationalizing, while Nagels Cartesian approach could be classified into the school of empiricism, as his rationalizing deal mainly with the reality of sense perception. The two approaches do both arrive at one of the same conclusions, which is they both acknowledge a need for a distinction of a right and wrong way (Pierce 52). There must be right...
