images; and the proof of the instrument is in the using. The particular kind of excellence proper to this particular kind of instrument is called 'truth.'

Modes of Veri

fication. Verification by Perception and by Consistency

§ 5. So much for the pragmatist theory of truth stated in the terms common to all pragmatists. We must now pass on to sharper distinctions, and to the ambiguities, doubts, and criticisms to which these distinctions give rise. The success or truth of the idea is relative to its use, and the verification of it consists in successfully using it. But there are various uses which ideas may serve. Are we to regard all of these uses as equally germane to an idea's truth? I may, for example, be induced by various motives to form an idea of my future state in the life after death. Such an idea may serve the purpose of preparing me for what I am going to see, or for what I am going to be called upon to do. Such an idea may console me for the loss of friends, or it may be demanded by the logical implications of my philosophical system. Suppose these tests conflict. Can I discriminate among them as respects priority? Or shall I attach equal weight to all, and determine the truth of my idea by the general preponderance of utility? I find no clear answer to this question in the writings of pragmatists. All four of these tests, and possibly others, are recognized as valid; and the choice from among them would seem to be not infrequently governed by the exigencies of controversy. In order to bring out more clearly the difference between these truthtests or modes of verification, I shall invent names for them as follows: verification by perception, consistency, operation, sentiment, and general utility.

Verification by perception, is simply the following up of the meaning of an idea. An idea means something, as we have seen, when it is so connected with something as to lead to the presentation of it. The idea must be a sort of handle to the object, a means of recovering it. And when I try my idea by using it to recover its object, I verify it

in this first sense. It is true if the perception is what the idea calls for, or what the idea leads me to expect. Thus having an idea of my future state means having something now in mind (it may be no more than a verbal complex) that is so related to my environment as to conduct me to a certain locus in experience; and it is a true idea in proportion as it prepares me for the perception which would there greet me. To verify my idea in this sense would be to follow its lead into this perceptual presence, and so test my preparedness. A shock of novelty and surprise would prove the untruth of my idea; a sense of recognition would indicate its truth.1

Verification by consistency, is the testing of the idea on trial, by ideas already in good and regular standing. The idea is proved true by this test when it is not contradicted by other ideas, or is positively implied by them. Thus my idea of my future state is proved by this test in so far as it is not contradicted by the accepted physiological theory of death, or is implied by the accepted theory of the nature of the soul.

Now verification by perception and by consistency evidently stand apart by themselves. They correspond to the traditional criteria of empiricism and rationalism. In restating them pragmatism has simply pointed out that in both cases verification is a series of acts, governed by motives, and terminating in success or failure. Furthermore, pragmatists such as James regard these two modes of verification as the strictly "theoretical" tests of truth. They may not in any given case be sufficient, but so far as they go they have a peculiar validity. "Between the coercions of the sensible order and those of the ideal order our mind is thus wedged tightly." The formation of ideas that shall be determined by these two "coercions" is the cognitive interest in the narrow sense. Such ideas have a 'subsequential utility"—that is, they may be usefully employed by other interests; but they get their original 1 For similar examples, cf. James: op. cit., pp. 33, 104.

verification from perception or consistency. And "sometimes alternative theoretic formulas are equally compatible with all the truths we know, and then we choose between them for subjective reasons." But there remains an important difference between the grounds of the validation of the alternatives, and the grounds of the validation of such a choice from among them. All this strongly suggests that it might be clearer if the term 'true' were restricted to ideas verified in one of these ways by perception or by ideal consistency. "Subsequential utility” and "subjective reasons" would then remain as extralogical grounds of belief. One might readily agree that truth in this narrower sense was an insufficient criterion, that the exigencies of life required belief in excess of proof. But the stricter truth tests would not be confused nor their priority compromised. The virtue of such a course will become more apparent as we proceed.

Verificaton by Operation and by Sentiment

§ 6. By 'verification by operation' I mean the same thing that James means by "subsequential utility." Or to employ another distinction made by the same author, I mean verification by "active" rather than "passive" experience. Thus my idea of my future state is verified in this sense in so far as the plans which I base on it succeed. Such would be the case, for example, if I were to receive my reward in heaven for sacrifices deliberately made in this world.

Pragmatism has rightly insisted upon the relation of cognition to collateral interests. That there is always some such relation no one will be disposed to deny. The cognitive interest is one of the functions of a complex organism, and has developed because of its organic usefulness. Whatever is known is available for any uses of which the organism is capable; it can be felt, acted on, talked about, written down, thought about, or dealt with

1 James: Pragmatism, pp. 211, 217; cf. pp. 216-217; Meaning of Truth, pp. 206 sq.

Meaning of Truth, p. 210.

in any of the other ways characteristic of human life. Mr. Schiller goes to unnecessary lengths to show that there are no useless truths. His conclusion could be drawn at once from the unity of the psychophysical organism; the sensory, associative, affective, and motor elements in human nature all contribute to a more or less common fund of resources. And one may easily go farther, and show that the solidarity of society and the ready means of communication and intercourse, make these resources available for humanity at large. But this is very far from a proof that truth consists in such uses. They are involved because of the organic and social connections of the truth-seeking function; but truth would not cease to be truth if some organic or social abnormality were to make it impossible to use it. As a matter of fact, since the development of scientific method it has been customary to reach truths by the theoretical means above described, and to regard their truth as established quite independently of the uses to which subsequently they may or may not be put.

The issue is somewhat confused by the fact that, entirely apart from the process of verification itself, many truths are practical in their subject matter. The cognitive interest, originally in bondage to the organism, is most urgently concerned with what may be called truths of use. The most immediately important truths, the cash truths, so to speak, are answers to questions of this form: What will happen to me if I do a to b? Truths of physical science are largely of this order; and it is natural to regard these as generally typical because of their bulk and urgency. But it will be observed that truth is here made, not by the practical sequel to the theory, but by embracing the practical sequel within the theory, and then testing the whole by 'perception.' If I find that c will happen to me if I do a to b, I am experiencing the nature of a temporal circuit, including terms belonging both to the environment and to my own body. Experiment is here not an external

practical test, but the living through, the direct serial experience of, a set of connected events.

It is proper to ask, then, whether verification by operation is an independent test of truth. For it would appear to be either the employment of truths already established by our two former tests, or only a special form of these tests. Let me quote an example from Professor A. W. Moore. "The idea of an ache as the ache of a certain tooth is true, if an operation on the tooth alters the ache." This verification can be construed in one of two ways. On the one hand, the judgment 'such a tooth is aching' is verified by observing the localization of the ache, or by inference from the diseased character of the tooth. The latter would, I should suppose, be regarded as in the last analysis the most reliable test; and both would fall under one or the other of the strictly theoretical criteria above described. And whether one thereupon has the tooth pulled, or not, would not affect the truth of the judgment so verified. The truth would be useful, but its usefulness would be a secondary and irrelevant circumstance. Or, on the other hand, the judgment "were I to have this tooth pulled, the pain would disappear" is verified by observing the sequence tooth pulled — ache gone, where the judgment refers to an operation and is verified by perceiving the operation. Thus in both cases truth is tested by perception or consistency; and pragmatism instead of adding a new test, is confined to showing the pragmatic character of the old familiar tests of experiment and inference.

Verification by sentiment, is the proof of an idea by its immediate pleasantness or by its tonic effect upon the will. Thus my idea of my future state is verified in this sense if "I like the idea," or if it makes life better worth living. "We choose the kind of theory to which we are already partial," says James; "we follow 'elegance' or 'economy.' "No completely pessimistic system is ever judged com1 Pragmatism and its Critics, p. 87.