Gary F., Jon,
I think that Jon was suggesting that Peirce was consciously operating in
a terminological tradition including the fields that we now call
probability theory and statistics, in which Peirce did some important
work. And you know how Peirce was about honoring terminological
traditions. Years ago here at peirce-l I was discussing 'event' as that
word is sometimes used in physics, going by a definition that I
remembered from a passage somewhere by Einstein, pretty much equivalent
to Peirce's definition of 'occurrence', and Jon became insistent that I
shouldn't use the word 'event' in that way. Jon is often milder
nowadays! Anyway, in case this argument is really about who is to do a
little investigation, I'll do a little.
'Event' is in the word list at P.E.P.-UQÀM:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120324152509/http://www.pep.uqam.ca/listsofwords.pep?l=E
'Occur' (but not 'occurrence') is in the word list at P.E.P.-UQÀM:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120324152344/http://www.pep.uqam.ca/listsofwords.pep?l=O
I don't find anything in the Century Dictionary definitions of 'occur'
and 'occurrence' relating to a technical distinction made between them
and 'event' in probability theory.
The Century Dictionary, starting with 4th meaning under "event":
A contingent, probable, or possible happening; a coming to pass; in
the theory of probabilities, anything which may or may not be; any
general state of things considered as having a probability: as, in
the _/event/_ of his death his interest will lapse. — *Compound
event,* that which in reference to its probability is regarded as
consisting in the concatenation or coincidence of two or more
different events. — *Double event,* two races, or other trials of
strength or skill, upon the winning of both depends the winning of
certain wager or stake. — *Simple event,* in the doctrine of
probabilities, something whose probability is deduced from direct
observation. *= Syn. 1.* [....] _/Occurrence/_ is literally that
which meets us in our progress through life, and does not connect
itself with the past as an _/event/_ does. [....]
[End quote]
In that sense, the same event can take indefinitely many forms, since it
is defined by an abstractive question that it resolves (note the
etymological parallel between 'event' and 'outcome'). As Peirce was
aware of that technical sense, it's easy to see how he felt the need to
use another word for the sense of a slice of the actual in all its
actual detail. Such a slice the closest that he gets to the idea of an
actual thing in itself, - the _/occurrence/_ (in MS 647) is not
incognizable, but instead is not fully cognizable, yet still is without
some pre-designatable actual hidden part or actual secret compartment
that in principle nobody could ever know or imagine.
Best, Ben
On 10/10/2014 11:06 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Jon,
If we adopt your methodology, I guess that in order to decode this
message of yours, we need to look into the history of usage of the
terms "probability", "statistics", "technical" and "distinction", as
well as "term" and "look into"; and we have to make all of that
history explicit before we dare to guess what you're talking about.
I think we have a better chance of understanding Peirce's particular
usages of the terms "event" and "occurrence" by looking at the
contexts in which he used them, including his purpose of contrasting
them with the term "fact". We may guess wrong about what he means, at
first - abductions are often wrong - but just as often, by continuing
the dialogue, we can *learn* that they are wrong, and guess again.
gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 10-Oct-14 9:10 AM
To: 'Peirce List'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.8
Gary & All,
Just off-hand, you might look into the way the term "event" is used
in probability and statistics, and the technical distinction that is
made between "event" and "occurrence". I'm pretty sure the terms have
been used that way since Boole, at least, if not since the time of
Fermat and Pascal.
Regards,
Jon
Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Gary R, Clark, Stephen, lists,
Clark, I can't comment on Davidson because I haven't read him. But
as for Peirce's usage of "event", it never occurred to me that it
means anything different than the usual vernacular meaning: an event
is something that actually happens.
-----------------------------
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 .
