Gary R. Gary F & Cathy, Very nice. I'm saving this somewhere that i won't lose it. Phyllis
Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: >Gary, Cathy, list, > >So, slightly modifying Cathy's list in consideration of Gary F's comments >we get (and, personally, with an eye to introducing these methods to >students): > > > > >*Method of Tenacity: private, randomMethod of Authority: public, >randomMethod of Consensus: public, reasonedMethod of Science: public, >reasoned and tested* > >Best, > >Gary R. > > > >*Gary Richmond* >*Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >*Communication Studies* >*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > >On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Welcome back, Cathy! >> >> Your classification of the four methods of fixing belief describes the "A >> Priori Method" as "private, reasoned". But as Peirce describes it >> (EP1:118-19), it is no more "private" than the method of Authority; indeed >> it is more public, in that it recognizes a broader range of other people's >> ideas as being worthy of consideration. Actually I don't like to call it >> the "A Priori Method" because that does make it sound private, when >> actually it's quite social in practice. I think it might better be called >> the method of Consensus, where beliefs are fixed by agreement rather than >> tested against experience. It is reasoning prior to experiment, not prior >> to dialogue and debate with other reasoners. (Though of course a dialogue >> *can* be internal.) >> >> gary f. >> >> } A man must not swallow more beliefs than he can digest. [Havelock Ellis] >> { www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm }{ gnoxics >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Catherine Legg [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 2-May-14 5:59 AM >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> Having not been able to wrest open my peirce-l inbox for some time, I was >> able to peruse the chapter 6 thread pretty much in one reading last night. >> It was very nice to see the various themes unfold and develop before my >> eyes. >> >> Thank you Jeff K for your rich account of Peircean epistemology - informed >> by your own research career in this area - that you used to put a very >> lucid context around Kees' treatment. Thank you Jeffrey D for the >> sophisticated Kantian scholarly framework you brought to bear, and the many >> probing questions you asked to try to push the discussion deeper. >> Here are some thoughts I had: >> >> Ben pointed out how ethics and aesthetics might be seen to be in the >> background even of Peirce's remarks at the end of his very early paper FoB. >> It was possibly even unrecognised by Peirce at that point that these prior >> sciences were already 'growing there'. This was really interesting to me - >> thanks, Ben. >> >> Jeff K (and others) drew this out by distinguishing between an 'efficiency >> argument' and an 'ethical argument' in FoB for the method of science over >> the other three methods, suggesting that Peirce might have vacillated >> between the two. I wonder if we might put the two back together, though, >> via the discussion of 'ultimate ends' and 'the only evil is not to have an >> ultimate end', that took place at the tail-end of Chapter 4 between Stefan, >> Phyllis, Gary, Matt and others. >> >> Sam said we should distinguish between the claim that the 4th method is >> the only one for which it makes sense to say there is a right and wrong way >> of applying it, and the claim that science is self-correcting. Jeff D >> conceded this point, but I'm not sure I agree. What is it to self-correct >> other than to recognise that one is going about one's chosen task wrongly? >> >> This led into a very interesting discussion of whether the 4th method >> really is the only one that allows self-correction, as Peirce claims. I was >> thinking perhaps the method of authority also allows for *some* kind of >> right or wrong way of applying it. For instance we might imagine a group of >> scholastic philosophers realising that they had 'got Aristotle all wrong'. >> Peirce may try to get out of this by arguing that in that case the medieval >> scholars have begun scientific inquiry into the views of Aristotle, but >> this sounds a bit too easy of a solution, which broadens the concept of >> scientific inquiry merely to solve the problem. I was thinking that it >> would be the method of authority that would allow self-correction if any of >> the other 3 methods did, since that is the other 'public' method. I >> subscribe to a characterisation of the 4 methods that I can't remember >> where I picked up, but it goes like this: >> >> Method of Tenacity: private, random >> Method of Authority: public, random >> A Priori Method: private, reasoned >> Method of Science: public, reasoned >> >> Using this taxonomy I considered Jeff D's fascinating question of whether >> these 4 methods are the only possible. I was initially inclined to answer >> yes, because the taxonomy considered this way might be said to cover all of >> logical space. However, the examples Jeff D gave were very intriguing. >> With the dialectical method I agreed with Ben that it probably collapsed >> into the a priori method. The hermeneutic method I think is what the >> scholastic philosophers are doing with Aristotle above. But the >> genealogical method.............????? Maybe this breaks the mold? And >> Peirce seems to be relying on it more and more in his later philosophy >> insofar as he invokes an evolutionarily developing instinct, rather than >> ratiocination, as a guiding principle in inquiry.... I don't know. >> >> Cathy >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm. >> >> >> >> >> >>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
