and wrong ways to know a belief, or to know a reality, that do not appeal to [ones] feelings and purposes (Pierce 53). Pierce ends at the conclusion of the scientific method, in that the first three are refutable because of their appeal to a personal aspect of belief. Nagel refutes claims about beliefs about the external world because they all rely on an appeal to personal experiences and thoughts, feelings and sense impressions (Nagel 8). In this sense, the two theories want to assume that there is more to belief than the reasoning of the individual, that belief is something transcendent, even universal. There must be some universal veracity to knowledge and belief. Though the views presented are diverse in their epistemological natures, this fundamental view remains held by both philosophers. Pierces paper gives us a look into the pragmatic nature of epistemology, a very practical approach on how we come to a belief. Nagel reviews the Cartesian approach to epistemology, showing us the unreliability in assuming a reality apart from ourselves. How we can come to any sort of belief on anything is questioned in both works, yet in taking completely different approaches, they delve into the complete realm of knowledge. The cohesion between the two approaches is purely that they refute a personal or exclusive method in determining ones beliefs. Beliefs must be universal, transcendent of the individual....
