Ben, Jon S., John C., Helmut, list, Ben, thanks for your spot on comments and for providing links to two of Shepperson's most insightful papers (and more, including the *Critical Arts* volume on his work), as well as my paper focusing on his "Realism, Logic, and Social Communication" paper.
Thank you also for this correction. I had written that Arnold "was perhaps South Africa's best known. . . Peirce scholar" but should have said, as you did, "that Arnold was South Africa's only or best-known _*home-grown*_ Peirce scholar." For certainly John Collier is today one of South Africa's leading scholars even if not "home grown," his scholarship ranging over complexity theory, emergence, information theory, and philosophy, including Peirce. See: http://web.ncf.ca/collier/ He has, as well, been an insightful contributor to this list over the years. Moving now to your comments, I think they get directly to the heart of the value of considering 'potential populations' in certain types of research. You wrote: BU: Consideration of potential populations (abnumerable collections) involving "would-be's" might inform sociology, anthropology, etc., by focusing attention on aspects of their subject matter that are real yet difficult to draw inductive conclusions about." Of course Shepperson doesn't discount the value of considering denumerable and numberable collections in research in these areas, and the examples I offered of these ('a census'; 'the partial ordering of the generations of a society'), were taken from his work. But they have severe limitations in such research, sometimes creating barriers to further research by providing a somewhat static snapshop of what is truly a dynamic process. As you well put it: BU: "Shepperson's [. . .] goes to some trouble to discuss the limitations as well as the possible gains of such induction. Researchers like to find illuminating simple relationships that hold up despite complexity and change; but it's pretty hopeless to confine one's attention to such things. Part of Arnold's point seems to be that we can't so confine our attention, since *social institutions themselves already are social inquiry processes* (emphasis added by GR). I would suggest that this is not only "part of Arnold's point," but a *major* part of it. Inquirers into aspects of a society's' institutional functioning are themselves often involved in the social institution they're inquiring into. In Arnold's case this most certainly included the work he did for a government agency concerned with mining safety in South Africa. Here are Joe Ransdell's Sept. 30, 2006 comments on his reconsideration of Arnold's paper based on that research, "Safety and Logic of Hazard." JR: My characterization of Arnold's paper "Safety and the Logic of Hazard" is not adequate and, after going through it again -- very hurriedly but with a better focus of attention than the first time through -- I realized that both his title and my brief characterization of it as being an application of Peirce's Economy of Research hardly even begins to suggest what it is really about. In fact, I don't know how to describe it in such a way as to do justice to it, but I do want to say that I find the range of things he is concerned with in it astonishing and extraordinarily exciting and I will be reading it again and again at the pace which it deserves. There is, for example a several page overview of Peirce's career and his philosophy which is masterfully done, well worth reading for that alone, as can also be said about his account of some of the principles of Peirce's pioneering theory of economy of research. But what especially interested me is a remarkable and lengthy discussion of the history of various and sometimes competing and contradicting conceptions of culture, tradition, and custom that have flourished at one time and another in the discourse of social theorists of various sorts, this being presented within the contextual frame of Peirce's categories of Quality, Actuality, and Representation which Arnold provides. The paper as a whole is so rich conceptually, and done with such a light touch and magisterial skill, that I can't imagine that there would be anyone in this forum who would not find what Arnold is doing in this paper to be of unusual interest for one reason or another. Arnold's work, and perhaps especially that offfered in the two papers mentioned above, is well worth studying for the reasons Joe gave. Would that some graduate student would take aspects of it up and develop it. Meanwhile, quoting Joe again on SHL: "The paper as a whole is so rich conceptually, and done with such a light touch and magisterial skill, that I can't imagine that there would be anyone in this forum who would not find what Arnold is doing in this paper to be of unusual interest for one reason or another." I could say much the same about Arnold's other paper at Arisbe, "Realism, Logic, and Social Communication," Best, Gary R [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 Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., Jon S., John C., list, > > Consideration of potential populations (abnumerable collections) involving > "would-be's" might inform sociology, anthropology, etc., by focusing > attention on aspects of their subject matter that are real yet difficult to > draw inductive conclusions about. I've just re-read parts of Shepperson's > paper that discusses it; he goes to some trouble to discuss the limitations > as well as the possible gains of such induction. Researchers like to find > illuminating simple relationships that hold up despite complexity and > change; but it's pretty hopeless to confine one's attention to such things. > Part of Arnold's point seems to be that we can't so confine our attention, > since social institutions themselves already are social inquiry processes. > > Links: > > Your paper on Shepperson: "Cultural Pragmatism and the *Life of the Sign*" > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/shepperson.pdf > > Arnold Shepperson: "Realism, Logic, and Social Communication: C.S. > Peirce’s classification of science in communications studies and > journalism." This is not confined to a dry abstract discussion of > classification; it is pragmatically oriented to applications. > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ > shepperson/jmc-arisbe.htm > > Shepperson-related links: > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/newbooks.htm#shepperson_tomaselli > > You wrote that Arnold "was perhaps South Africa's best known (he'd have > said, "only") Peirce scholar" > > One might say that Arnold was South Africa's only or best-known _ > *home-grown*_ Peirce scholar, since John Collier has lived there for > years (John is originally from Canada and has lived in another country or > two as well, if I recall correctly). John also helped supervise a thesis of > Arnold's, or something like that (there my memory is fuzzy). > > Best, Ben > > On 10/1/2016 2:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Ben, Jon, list, > > The discussion today got me thinking again about Arnold Shepperson's work. > Shepperson who died prematurely and so was not able to fully develop let > alone complete his work, was perhaps South Africa's best known (he'd have > said, "only") Peirce scholar. In a special edition of the S.A. journal, > *Critical > Arts* , I wrote an article, "Cultural Pragmatism and the *Life of the > Sign,* " outlining an important principle of his approach to inquiry. > > In consideration of inquiry requiring the sampling of a population, > Shepperson argued that, for example, in his own field, JMC (journalism, > media, and communication studies) that inquiry employed hypotheses > involving not only denumerable and enumerable collections (see below), but > even more so, that it *ought* consider what Peirce termed "abnumerable > collections," that is collections of *potential populations,* changing > populations tending towards the future. Here's a short excerpt from my > article which focuses on this principle. > > Shepperson argued strongly that the kind of sampling appropriate to most > JMC inquiry is a little understood variety *not* relying on statistical > probabilities. This alternative approach is necessary because “the persons, > collections and institutions that make up the social realm do not > constitute a collection that can be validly sampled statistically.” > > In this model JMC inquiry is not essentially concerned with collections > whose members can be *presently counted* (e.g., a census), nor even those > which form a *partial ordering* (e.g., the generations of a given > society). Rather, he holds that, as JMC concerns itself with ever-changing > populations tending towards the future, it ought sample *potential* > populations, what Peirce called *abnumerable collections* (as opposed to > the denumerable and enumerable collections just mentioned parenthetically > above). Shepperson noted that since the very subject matter of JMC studies, > the social realm, is itself an abnumerable collection, statistical sampling > could result in distortions, kinds of ‘freezing’ of the characters of what > are essentially ever-changing, perhaps evolving populations. > > Furthermore, potential collections involve what Peirce refers to as > *would-bes* , or that which would occur if certain conditions were > brought about (for example, if all young people in a given society were > provided internet access) and this too relates to the ethics involved in > JMC inquiry and practice. This emphasis on potential populations does not > deny that in specific contexts and under certain conditions that > statistical sampling isn’t desirable in JMC research. But Shepperson’s > argument strongly implies that, when considering the social realm, it is > not possible to “draw necessary conclusions about the human future.” All > researchers can do is to “continually test our hypotheses against > experience, correcting as we learn from the errors that this experience > reveals.” It was Shepperson’s hope that JMC inquiry could develop exemplary > methods and techniques for sampling abnumerable collections so that its > findings would tend “over the long run to approximate to true assertions > about social and human reality.” > > Any thoughts on how the consideration of potential populations > (abnumerable collections) involving "would-be's" might inform inquiry into > those fields concerned with human behavior and institutions, such as > sociology, anthropology, etc? > > Best, > > Gary R > > [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 > <718%20482-5690> * > > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected] > wrote: > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
