Dear Jon - Did you read my chapter on anti-psychologism? I am flattered that some participants are so anxious to debate the themes of my book that they jump ahead in the discussion! As early as 1865, Peirce said: "But I will go a step further and say that we ought to adopt a thoroughly unpsychological view of logic . . . (W1 164)." I think P never wavered from that point of view. That does not imply P regarded psychology as such as irrelevant, quite on the contrary, he was a pioneer in expermental psychology. He also thought psychology might investigate issues pertaining to how e.g. the human mind processes logic and reasoning, cf. its speed, attention span, concentration, etc. But as to logic itself - even taking P's broad definition comprizing semiotics and the theory of science he called methodeutics - it should be thoroughly unpsychological. I do not think anti-psychologism is a misnomer for that position.
Best F Den 02/09/2014 kl. 21.00 skrev Jon Awbrey <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> : Frederik, Yes, I know that Frege was strongly "anti-" but Peirce's position is more nuanced than that, and the adjective "non-psychological" has the benefit of being one that Peirce actually used to describe his definition of logic. I made that suggestion in the hopes of avoiding some futile discussions, the likes of which I was pained to experience in cognitive sci circles all through the 80s. So nuff said on that. Jon
----------------------------- 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 .
