Gene, List, Gene, I completely agree with your neatly argued response to Steven. To succinctly summarize your argument in your own words, Peirce "challenged science to come to terms with a more comprehensive living universe, alive in still active creation and a reasonableness energizing into being."
Well said! Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Eugene Halton <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Steven, > I have to disagree. In one sense, however, well-put, but for the > opposite meaning you intended. > Charles went "off-the-rails" of the delusional scientific worldview > of necessitarianism, of the clockwork universe moving with the necessity of > a clock, or train constrained to its tracks. In showing the place of > spontaneity and the evolution of laws, and in the further development of > his realism, he challenged science to come to terms with a more > comprehensive living universe, alive in still active creation and a > reasonableness energizing into being. > Although Peirce might not have put it this way, he showed how the > attempt by modern science, the pawn of nominalism, to kill nature, was a > logical failure, that science required something more. > Of course practically nominalistic science and technology have shown > great short run success in killing nature thus far, at least locally on our > earth, and remain on track toward that end. > Gene Halton > On Mar 11, 2015 11:02 PM, "Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> In fact, I have to say that Charles had many good and interesting things >> to say, especially while his father was alive (to 1880), but that he did go >> "off-the-rails" toward the end of his work. This notion of spontaneity and >> the consequent evolution of laws, in particular, offer science no hope of >> the certainty his father pursued. >> >> Steven >> >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> So it is the "infinitesimal departures from law" that I disagree with. >>> If Charles were referring only to randomness within the laws, then that >>> would be fine and he'd have on disagreement from me. But as it stands it >>> undermines the whole scientific endeavor. >>> Regards,Steven >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> No, it doesn't undermine everything else. Spontaneity is not anarchy >>>> or randomness. Spontaneity, as Peirce noted, and I repeat: >>>> >>>> "by thus admitting pure spontaneity of life as a character of the >>>> universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within narrow >>>> bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and >>>> great ones with infinite infrequency, I account for all the variety and >>>> diversity of the universe" 6.59......The ordinary view has to admit the >>>> inexhaustible multitudinous variety of the world, has to admit that its >>>> mechanical law cannot account for this in the least, that variety can >>>> spring only from spontaneity..... (ibid)... >>>> >>>> Spontaneity is a basic property of life, just as habit-formation is a >>>> basic property; just as kinetic mechanical action is yet another property >>>> (Firstness, Thirdness and Secondness in that order)...and they work >>>> interactively together. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> ; Jon Awbrey >>>> <[email protected]> ; Peirce List <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:39 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude >>>> >>>> But you understand the epistemic implications of accepting spontaneity >>>> as a law, it undermines everything else. >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I continue to differ. Scientific knowledge is not reduced to >>>>> knowledge about necessary actions but must include an acknowledgement of >>>>> the reality of spontaneity. I presume you've read Peirce's 1892 'The >>>>> Doctrine of Necessity Examined'. I provided a brief quote from that in an >>>>> earlier post. I think his argument stands as rational and valid and not, >>>>> as >>>>> you suggest, 'off the rails'. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, to confine scientific knowledge only to the results of law >>>>> and refuse to accept as real, as valid, as anything other than 'random >>>>> aberration' - these spontaneous events, reduces not science but life >>>>> itself >>>>> to mere mechanical iterations. >>>>> >>>>> I'm saying that spontaneity is, in itself, a 'kind of law' which is to >>>>> say, it is a basic reality, a vital component, of life. Again, I don't >>>>> define spontaneity as 'randomness' which is in itself mechanical and >>>>> empty; >>>>> I define spontaneity as probability (not possibility) - which means that >>>>> there is in life, a basic capacity to 'be different from the norm'. This >>>>> capacity is not, again, due to randomness which is a mere mechanical >>>>> result; it is an active auto-organized capacity of information gathering >>>>> by >>>>> the organism of its environment - and within itself, a capacity to deviate >>>>> from its normative mode - and, spontaneously, differ and form an >>>>> adaptation, an evolved state. >>>>> >>>>> How does your view of 'results only due to necessary laws' - allow for >>>>> this deviation? I would presume that you would consider deviation to be >>>>> random. I reject randomness as a total waste of energy, and suggest that >>>>> the organism has in itself, the capacity to deviate - and this is not and >>>>> cannot be law-driven but must be spontaneous. Again, spontaneity (see also >>>>> Aristotle on this) is not the same as randomness. >>>>> >>>>> Edwina >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >>>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>>> *Cc:* Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> ; Peirce List >>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:17 AM >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude >>>>> >>>>> Edwina says: "Scientific knowledge, in my view, has the capacity to >>>>> acknowledge events and situations that are not replicable, i.e., are not >>>>> within the control of an agent or system, but, are random non-controlled >>>>> events that have taken place (a chance event) and might probably take >>>>> place (a deviation from the norm and the development of a new species)." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would very much like to see an example of, or even to hear an >>>>> account of, such an event or situation, and how you would propose that >>>>> science deal with it. >>>>> >>>>> This is where Charles goes off the rails later in life from the views >>>>> of his father. If we allowed such "spontaneity" in necessity then how >>>>> could >>>>> science state any law? >>>>> >>>>> This is a case where Charles threatens to undermine the entire venture >>>>> of his inquiry. >>>>> >>>>> Steven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jon, you are dancing around or should I say, with, red herrings - >>>>>> which in themselves are fallacious arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is: argument ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and ad >>>>>> populum (appeal to a broad consensus) ...as in your claim that your view >>>>>> is >>>>>> held by 'a long chain of perceptors'. But referring to this long chain >>>>>> and >>>>>> broad consensus doesn't, in my view, substantiate your claim that >>>>>> scientific knowledge 'rests on results that are replicable'. Furthermore >>>>>> - >>>>>> you are switching terms: the 'scientific method' is not at all the same >>>>>> as >>>>>> 'scientific knowledge'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scientific knowledge, in my view, has the capacity to acknowledge >>>>>> events and situations that are not replicable, i.e., are not within the >>>>>> control of an agent or system, but, are random non-controlled events that >>>>>> have taken place (a chance event) and might probably take place (a >>>>>> deviation from the norm and the development of a new species). >>>>>> >>>>>> And your definition of 'chance' as, apart from not being similar to >>>>>> any you know (have you not read Peirce?!)...as >>>>>> >>>>>> "A pattern of results not significantly different from those >>>>>> predicted by >>>>>> >>>>>>> the null hypothesis are what we call "chance" in scientific >>>>>>> inference and >>>>>>> yet results of that ilk are most annoyingly and eminently >>>>>>> reproducible" >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> is, to me, ambiguous and ignores the reality that is chance, ..see >>>>>> Peirce's argument in favour of 'pure spontaneity' and 'absolute chance' >>>>>> in >>>>>> the Doctrine of Necessity, and "by thus admitting pure spontaneity of >>>>>> life >>>>>> as a character of the universe, acting always and everywhere though >>>>>> restrained within narrow bounds by law, producing infinitesimal >>>>>> departures >>>>>> from law continually, and great ones with infinite infrequency, I account >>>>>> for all the variety and diversity of the universe" 6.59......The ordinary >>>>>> view has to admit the inexhaustible multitudinous variety of the world, >>>>>> has >>>>>> to admit that its mechanical law cannot account for this in the least, >>>>>> that >>>>>> variety can spring only from spontaneity..... (ibid)... >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>; "Peirce List" < >>>>>> [email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:42 PM >>>>>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Inquiry Blog >>>>>>> * http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/03/10/scientific-attitude-1/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peirce List >>>>>>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15803 >>>>>>> ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15804 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edwina, List, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope no one thinks I was trying to write anything novel >>>>>>> or shocking in my little SA. I merely aimed to summarize >>>>>>> the precepts that a long chain of preceptors have handed >>>>>>> down to us regarding what forms the bare bones of the SA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That first line you quibble with is stock in trade for scientific >>>>>>> method. >>>>>>> No one says you have to buy it, but you quibble with a broad >>>>>>> consensus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you appear to have a different definition of "chance" than any I >>>>>>> know. >>>>>>> A pattern of results not significantly different from those >>>>>>> predicted by >>>>>>> the null hypothesis are what we call "chance" in scientific >>>>>>> inference and >>>>>>> yet results of that ilk are most annoyingly and eminently >>>>>>> reproducible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/10/2015 10:54 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >>>>>>> > I will quibble with Jon's view that >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > "scientific knowledge rests on results that are reproducible". >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I would consider that to refer to 'mechanical knowledge' >>>>>>> (Secondness) >>>>>>> > for the scientific approach acknowledges the reality, which also >>>>>>> means >>>>>>> > the 'probability-to-be-actual' (Secondness), as Peirce insisted, of >>>>>>> > 'chance, freedom' or Firstness. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Chance events are never, by definition, reproducible. Only >>>>>>> mechanical >>>>>>> > processes are such, and scientific knowledge has to acknowledge the >>>>>>> > reality of all three modes, not just those that are in Secondness >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> > Thirdness (, as Jon also pointed out with reference to Thirdness >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> > "It is knowledge of particulars in general terms". ) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > We can of course, quibble over what is 'knowledge' >>>>>>> > and what is 'approach, attitude and so on' but I'm >>>>>>> > not into needles-on-a-pin. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Edwina >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>> 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 . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
