Thanks, Ben, for the research! I know 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.” But that seems to me unlikely in a context where he’s mainly referring to the logical difficulties with J.S. Mill’s concept of causality. Of course Peirce was aware of that technical sense, but there’s nothing in “Kaina Stoicheia” to indicate that he had that technical usage in mind.
gary f. From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10-Oct-14 12:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.8 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 <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 <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 .
