Dear Jeffrey, Ben, Jon, Edwina, Benjamin, Eugene, and others on list:
How about instead, C = Father and not God, God poet A = Son ( *viz*., Jesus), man, “philosopher”, scientist B = Spirit, *daimonion, * musician Does that sufficiently address the perfection of man as man problem if we include one two three…utterer interpreter commens…sophist statesman philosopher? That is, is CP 5.189 *ugly* enough to be safe from kidnappers? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/opinion/the-real-leo-strauss.html?_r=0 Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeffrey - I have a few problems with your analysis. I'll comment below: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" < > [email protected]> > To: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:06 PM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > > Hello Jon, List, > > The argument you are trying to reconstruct could be fleshed out more fully > in a number of ways. Here are a few suggestions for filling in some of the > details a bit more: > > 1) JEFFREY: Major premiss: Every inference is, in one way or another, > valid as a pattern of inference, including those that are instinctive. > Those that appear to be invalid are patterns of inference that are, > themselves, valid, but the appearance of invalidity is really due to the > fact that we have misunderstood what kind of inference it is (e.g., we > think it is inductive, when it is really abductive). Or, the apparent > invalidity is really just a lack of soundness in that something in the > premisses involves an error on our part and it is really false. As a form > of inference, every retroductive conjecture that meets certain conditions > (e.g., it responds to a question occasioned by real doubt, it is really > explanatory, it is possible to deduce consequences that can be put to the > test, it is possible to make inductive inferences that will tend to show > the hypotheses is confirmed or disconfirmed by observations, the > observations that will be used to test the hypothesis are not the same > observations that will be used to make the inductive inference, etc.) is a > valid abductive inference--and hence has a logical character. Such > arguments can, in time, be the subject of further development in arguments > that are more fully under our conscious control. As such, they can be made > into logical inferences that may rise up to higher levels of assurance, > including those of experience as well as form. > > EDWINA: Can you really mix up validity of format and false/truth of the > content? [where you write that 'something in the premisses involves an > error on our part and it is really false'. > --------------------------------- > > 2) JEFFREY: Minor premiss: The humble argument for the Reality of God is > a retroductive conjecture endorsed by instinctive reason. What is more, it > has in fact be met with the support of large communities of inquirers at > different times and places in human history and culture. In fact, it > appears that the core inferential patterns in the argument are prevalent in > the thought of virtually all reasonable human beings. Over time, different > communities have developed the instinctive hypothesis in a number of > different ways, but the core ideas seem to cut across all such > communities--including those communities that are quite spiritual in > orientation as well as those that claim to be less spiritual in > orientation. Setting aside the particularities of how the conceptions have > been developed in different human communities, and focusing on the core > ideas that appear to be held in common, we can see that those core ideas > can be developed into hypotheses that can be affirmed in a responsible and > self-controlled manner by those who are deeply infused by the desire to > learn and who have a relatively refined sense of how to conduct their > inquires according to experimental methods. > > EDWINA: I think that you are ADDING premises to this that are not in the > basic syllogism. > > You are declaring that 'it has been met with the support of large > communities of inquirers'..BUT - this does not have anything to do with the > logical format, and frankly cannot be used to substantiate the > truth/falseness of the argument. [Argument ad populum] > > You declare that 'the core inferential patterns in the argument are > prevalent in the thought of virtually all reasonable human beings'. Again, > an appeal-to-authority and majority - but, this does not prove > truth/falseness of the argument. It also doesn't deal with the faft that > 'reasonable human beings' can be atheists. > > --------------------------- > > > 3) JEFFConclusion: The humble argument for the Reality of God is logical > in all three senses--according to the assurance of instinct, experience and > according to the exact requirements of good logical form. We should > remember, however, that this is not a claim that the conclusion of the > argument is true. Rather, the claim is that the conclusion is plausible. > While it may lack something by way of security, it possesses much by way of > uberty. In fact, our experience shows that this grand hypothesis--which > serves a remarkable totalizing and synthesizing role in the great economy > of our ideas--both within the realm of our long growing commitments of > common sense and in our most cutting edge inquiries in the special > sciences--has shown and continues to show great uberty in the way that it > informs the healthy growth of our aesthetic feelings, our ethical practices > and in the ongoing logical growth of our thought. > > EDWINA: I agree - as you say, it's not a claim that the conclusion is > true. But, I'm not sure that you can say that because an argumental format > is logical, that the conclusion is plausible. > --------------------------------------- > > So, let us ask: does this hypothesis involving the conception of God > involve some kind of confusion on our part about the real character of the > inference, or does it rest on false premisses? Peirce's essay on "The > Neglected Argument" is a sustained effort to show that neither of these is > the case. As such, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Is the same true of the > alternate hypotheses? > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > ________________________________________ > From: Jon Alan Schmidt [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:24 PM > To: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > List: > > Based on what Peirce wrote in R 842 ... > > CSP: Taking the general description of it as a minor premiss, and a > certain theory of logic as a major premiss, it will follow by a simple > syllogism that the humble argument is logical and that consequently whoever > acknowledges its premisses need have no scruple in accepting its conclusion. > > ... I am now inclined to think that the syllogism that he had in mind was > something like this. > > Major premiss: Every retroductive conjecture endorsed by instinctive > reason is logical. > Minor premiss: The humble argument for the Reality of God is a > retroductive conjecture endorsed by instinctive reason. > Conclusion: The humble argument for the Reality of God is logical. > > Again, this is a relatively modest claim, especially since Peirce clearly > recognized that retroduction is the least secure form of inference. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/ > in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<htt > p://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > > > >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
