¶ … C.S Pierce's "The Fixation Belief" a reference, pages explain methods: (tenacity, authority, a priori science) In "The Fixation of Belief," author C.S. Pierce makes a number of contentions regarding the nature and importance of belief, and a variety of different methods that men utilize to accord their own particular convictions. The most rudimentary of these methods is known as tenacity -- which simply strives to eliminate all doubt from the mind regarding a particular belief by contriving circumstances and putting oneself in situations in which no evidence to the contrary is found. This concept is actually commonly practiced, and is the notion in which people make a point to believe that which they wish to believe, regardless of whether or not such a belief is actually true. This sort of selective perception has a number of limitations and benefits. Chief among the former is the fact that socially, the influences and opinions of others inevitably will affect such a person who utilizes this tenacious method -- which will inevitably bring forth doubt, the destroyer of belief. However, the principle benefit of this system is a sustained bliss (for however long one can go without significant social interaction) in which one can actually determine one's own beliefs and remain quite content in them.

The method of belief via authority is more conducive to social settings, and is largely based upon them. This method requires a central power, such as a priesthood, government, leader...

People are therefore simply told what to believe, taught it early, never question it and conform to whatever those beliefs are. The primary benefit of this method is that people can remain blissfully ignorant of affairs or of any sort of things that may lead to doubt. They need only be faithful to their beliefs, regardless of any reason why they should be so. Many people relish such simplicity and base their lives around it quite happily.
The a priori method of belief has similarities to the tenacity and authority methods. However, there are also some pronounced differences between a priori and the other pair. One is the fact that the a priori method actually attempts to incorporate reason into its reasons for ascertaining a particular conviction. Such reason is typically based upon natural causes, yet is severely limited in the fact that it does not take any preceding facts or observances about a belief into consideration. There is, therefore, a fair degree of autonomy in the beliefs that a priori leads people to, which is not always consistent or congruent with one another, and which may not necessarily be true. In that sense there is a fair amount of opinion involved in this method. Such opinion is based upon natural occurrences as they appear to the individual. The primary benefit of this method is that one is actually thinking for oneself (as opposed to the method of tenacity in which one is…