Jon A., List: It is also important to recognize that Peirce deliberately revised his formulation over time from the indicative to the subjunctive conditional; again, "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation *would *tend to bring scientific belief" (CP 5.565, emphasis added; 1901). Or as he later wrote, "I call 'truth' the predestinate opinion, by which I ought to have meant that which *would *ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction" (EP 2:457, emphasis in original; 1911). Or as Cornelius de Waal put it in *Peirce: A Guide for the Perplexed*, "Peirce stops talking about the final opinion as something we are *fated* to reach, maintaining instead that whenever we engage in inquiry we do so with the *hope* that it will lead to a final opinion ... Proposition *P* is true if and only if, had all the facts necessary for establishing *P* been inquired into indefinitely by a sufficiently large community of investigators, this inquiry would have resulted in the permanently settled belief that *P*" (pp. 132-135, emphases in original).
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Thread: > JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00098.html > JR:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00104.html > > Jerry, List, > > The key word there is “investigate”. We can read that loosely > as any method of fixing belief, but we know that Peirce ranked > methods of fixing belief in order of their malleability to the > impressions of reality, their aptness to let what is permanent, > persistent, “something upon which our thinking has no effect” > settle the matter once and for all. > > Tenacity, Authority, Plausibility, Inquiry > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/01/15/tenacity-authority > -plausibility-inquiry/ > > This is the question of “convergence”, a question that mathematicians, > physicists, systems theorists, etc. have investigated in great detail. > As a rule we find that some methods of procedure, of stepping through > a sequence of states, will eventually converge on a settled or stable > state while others will not. All that is relative, of course, to the > mathematical model or theory we have in hand for describing states of > information in time. So we never quite escape the question of how to > tell whether a model is good and succeeds in its purpose of giving us > information about its object or whether it falls short of that object. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 3/13/2017 4:14 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > >> ... and there you have it. >> >> Only *everybody* can know the truth. >> >> The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to >> by *all who investigate*, is what we mean by the truth, >> >> and the object represented in this opinion is the real. >> >> The true precept is not to abstain from hypostatization, >> but to do it intelligently. >> > > -- > > 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 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 .
