EVERYBODY, 

 

I am packing, traveling, or unpacking over the next several days.  Looking 
forward to picking this up next week end.  Thanks for pitching in.

 

Eric, 

 

Up to your last sentence, I was with you all the way, and very well said!

 

I think you may slip up in your final words.  I would have written something 
like, “==>IF<== there is a stable belief to be had, we – the human community of 
inquiry – will converge on it in the very long run.”  That, I think, is the 
only article of faith in Peirce’s philosophy.   

 

By the way, I think I finally realized how Pierce came to confuse abduction and 
induction in his later years.   In fact, not sure the distinction passes the 
pragmatic maxim.  Sad day [for me]. 

 

Nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2018 9:11 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Bybee <[email protected]>; marthafranks 
<[email protected]>; Stephen Van Luchene <[email protected]>; Grant 
Franks2 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Peirce's "What Pragmatism is."

 

I'm not going to try to lard the post-modernism discussion, but want to reply 
in general: 

In Peirce's cosmology, it is quite possible that there is very little that 
stays stable in the very long run. Maybe even nothing!  And yet, it is exactly 
those stabilities that the scientist is searching for, and it is exactly 
long-term convergence of the evidence that they are trying to get at with words 
like "true" and "real". What happens when decades of investigation don't find 
stable relations between categories of things? We change the categories being 
used and try again. What is an element? There were many things that people 
thought were "elements" but which were later determined to be "composites" of  
several "elements." 

We know "iron ore" is many things, but what about "hematite"? Is hematite one 
thing, or many things? And we know "iron ore" is composed of many things, one 
of which is "iron", but is iron one thing or many things? The "truth" of any 
attempted answer to those questions is a matter of whether, in the long run, 
actions based on those beliefs stay stable. That "iron" is "an element" is 
nothing other than a claim regarding what would or would not be found in the 
very, very long run of scientific investigation, and the vast majority of such 
claims will be wrong, because they are carving out swaths of the world in which 
the claimed stability simply does not exist. 

If there is one glaring bit of faith in Peirce's philosophy, it is belief that, 
in the long run, the honest investigators will win out. He believes that 
reality impinges upon belief, and that, in the long run, the temptation of 
fixating belief in response to authority, pure stubbornness, or other methods 
will ultimately give way, and people will come back to seeking out what is 
true. 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to