Hi Jon A, Val Daniel, Jon S, John S, List, Let me ask a couple of questions about your experiences engaging with others in collaborative inquiry using online tools including Wikipedia, blogs and the Peirce-List. If others have suggestions based on their own experiences, please feel free to chime in.
As you know, I'm working with a group that has been developing a pair of related collaborative research projects. Our aims are twofold: first, we are trying to bring a network of Peirce scholars and interested laypeople together for the purpose of transcribing and interpreting Peirce's unpublished manuscripts in the SPIN project; second, we are trying to bring the network of Peirce scholars together with scientists who draw on the philosophical and logical ideas Peirce was developing in order to promote and support cutting edge collaborative research in a broad range of areas including biosemiotics, cognitive science and computer science in the APERI project. Both projects are meant to be open to all and democratic in spirit. We've created draft versions of two web pages to help publicize these efforts: 1. SPIN project: https://sites.google.com/site/spinpeirce/ 2. APERI project: https://sites.google.com/site/abductivepathways/ For the last year and a half, we have been selecting a suite of existing online tools, and then we've been additional functionality when needed (e.g., by adding LaTeX capabilities to the FromThePage transcription platform for the sake of encoding mathematical and logical formulas and diagrams). See: http://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16 Considerable time has been spent developing a framework for the project, we have been active in asking for letters of commitment from Peirce scholars and scientists to show funding agencies that we have buy-in from a number of people willing to engage, and we've spent more hours than I would care to admit applying to public and private grant agencies for the sake of securing the funding that is needed to support the project for the next several years. Given the dreams Jon A has dreamed about building a true community of learning and inquiry using online resource, and given what you and others have learned--both good and bad--by engaging with Wikipedia, online blogs and the like, do you have suggestions to offer about the following questions: a. What does and doesn't work in the context of Wikipedia for the sake of building what you consider to be a true community of learning and inquiry? b. What suite of resources would you recommend that are currently available to foster the growth of such a community? c. We believe that some kind of social publishing/forum discussion tool would be helpful to support collaborative research between people who are physically in different parts of the world, but we haven't found a platform that really suites the needs of the community. Can you suggest one--or suggest features that such a tool should have to promote a true community of learning and inquiry? We intend to use a range of online resources that, taken together, will function something like a "research ecosystem" including: (i) regular discussions between small research teams utilizing video-conferencing with screen sharing; (ii) dialogue mapping of the conversations taking place in video-conferences, by email, text or what you, as a kind of shared community research notebook; (iii) a network blog to keep the SPIN and APERI communities informed about what the different research teams are doing and learning; (iv) a relatively informal online e-journal to publish work in progress (e.g., including such things as an outline or prospectus of a research project that is just getting underway, diagrams that are being used to see questions and frame hypotheses, and pre-prints of drafts of articles that are in the works). What online tools or approaches would you recommend that we use or avoid given the aims of the SPIN and APERI projects? I appreciate any suggestions you have to offer. Yours, Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 ________________________________________ From: Jon Awbrey [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:13 PM To: E Valentine Daniel Cc: Peirce List Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth Val, List, Proposal accepted! Actually, I feel like I've been working along these lines ever since I first met up with Peirce. I'm currently fighting some emotional resistance -- it makes me a little sad to look at those old wiki-scraps -- the dreams we dreamed about what Wikipedia could be! a true community of learning and inquiry! but it was neither designed nor destined to become that. At any rate, I would begin by poring over the relics I saved and trying to see what sense we could make of them. By way of secondary literature, I remember thinking that Susan Haack's 'Evidence and Inquiry' and Cheryl Misak's 'Truth and the End of Inquiry' were rather helpful in framing the issue. The papers Susan Awbrey and I wrote in the 90s and 00s attempted to tackle pieces of the puzzle, namely, how to integrate the object-facing and inter-sign aspects of semiosis, the 1st implied by correspondence theories and the 2nd implied by consensus theories of truth. Published Paper: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350508401082013 Conference Talk: http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm Regards, Jon On 3/13/2017 2:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel wrote: > Dear Jon and Peirces, > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of > truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by > "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence"). > val daniel > > E. Valentine Daniel > Professor of Anthropology > 958 Schermerhorn Ext., > Columbia University > New York, 10027 > > (917) 741-7764 > [email protected] > >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Peircers, >> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging, >> so I started a blog series for attempting that: >> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/ >> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring >> [Peirce]” >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a “Procrustian >> bed >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to say >> in that regard if I can get to it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >>> Peircers, >>> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions, >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence. >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another >>> name for a triadic relation. >>> >>> Note. The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively. >>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth >>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> -- inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA 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 .
