Gary F wrote: 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.
I completely agree with this approach, especially as we are involved in a seminar centered on NP, the seminar having a schedule, etc. There are times and places for more extensive inquiries, and I suppose there's no reason for associated threads not to take up related ideas with changed Subject lines. But I hope that most all of us participating in this seminar--and those lurking ( I continue to receive notes from very interested lurkers) in the interest of learning more about, esp., the dicisign--are most interested in Frederik's arguments in NP as they explicate and extend Peirce's ideas regarding the dicisign. Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> 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. > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: > http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > >
----------------------------- 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 .
