Helmut,
Peirce was opposed to behaviorism in any proper sense, because
behaviorism did not exist by his time. It came into being later.
Behaviorism came from US, and sweeped over the field of anglo-american
psychology later than the span of life of CSP.
The roots of behaviorism come from Russia, from the works of I.P.
Pavlov. However, only a piece of his work was taken into use, that of a
conditional reflex. Which was very handy to replicate in experiments.
This simplistic notion gave rise to a huge wave of popularity, both
within psychology and other fields. It became the common view ordinary
people were educated into.
I.P. Pavlov, however, was concerned about the nervonal system as a
whole, His great invention was his theory on dynamical stereotypes
aiming at giving a valid description of the whole of living beings,
central and peripheral nerve system together with the muscular parts.
Action was also involved. Action with other living beings.
A selection of his works have been published in German, which I have
been reading to my great delight in my early days as a researcher.
The behavioralist schools present a sheer vandalism in relation with the
work of I.P Pavlov. The brain science of today would have much to learn
from his writings.
He lived for his work, and was allowed to do so, both in the tsarist and
the soviet era. He did not care the least on the regime he was living
in.
Hope this answered some of your questions, Helmut.
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 5.12.2016 23:34:
Clark, John, list,
I am not nearly as skilled in this subject, and about Peirce-texts as
you are, but I am happy to learn, that Peirce was opposed to
positivism and behaviourism. Because I always was having the
impression, that Peirce was a bit on the positivist side: There is
always the emphasis on "habit", when it is about thirdness. In Tychism
even the natural laws are due to habit. Habit for me does not seem to
be a metaphysical concept. I think for example, that emergence is
something completely different from habit, though thirdness. Ok, the
term "emergence" did not exist at the time of Peirce, it has to do
with chaos theory. But there was transcendental philosophy, and Peirce
sort of started with Kant. But if you compare Kants and Peirces
concepts of "A-Priori", then there is a difference: For Kant it means
something like conditions for knowledge out of pure reason. For
Peirce, in his four methods of inquiry, it is rather something having
to do with feeling or instinct. Which are positive things, but not
transcendent, grounded in metaphysics, things. So I am a bit confused
now. Ok, you might say, that semiotics is a sort of metaphysics, and a
behaviour has a better chance to become a habit if it goes along with
existing transcendental laws such as pure reason or natural laws. The
latter though are habits themselves, so: Circle. Remains pure reason.
Did Peirce believe in that, or is it also a matter of habit for him?
Confused, but wishing you the
Best,
Helmut
05. Dezember 2016 um 18:31 Uhr
"Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016, at 7:05 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
On 11/29/2016 2:57 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
Treating thirdness as something real in the universe independent
of what any particular person thinks about it is key.
That is not a new point. Scientists have always assumed that the
laws of nature are "really real".
It's a major point but not an universal one. Especially among
physicists Feynman's loose adoption of a kind of instrumentalism was
influential. So it wasn't just Mach or certain aspects of the
positivists. Of course most physicists who haven't studied any
philosophy end up with an incoherent mess of views on the nature of
physical laws. Sometimes a realist, sometimes an idealist, sometimes a
Feynman like denial that anything matters but calculating. At least in
my experience with physicists. (Chemists are somewhat different due to
a more practical field)
However I think what Peirce did differently was in thinking of the
laws of physics in terms of thirdness. I don't think most others -
even those who were realists about law - put them in quite that
formulation. (If only because few thought of things in those terms)
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [1] .
Links:
------
[1] 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
