John,
Thanks for changing the subject line!
I'm well aware of hypostatic abstraction and I have given a lot of
thought to its position in the overall philosophy of CSP. Which is
the context for both EG's and his logical graphs in a more general
sense.
In a certain narrow sense hypostatic abstraction may be seen as (just
a) distinction between verb forms and noun forms. But the relation
between hypothesis and hypostasis is more complicated, as I assume you
are well aware.
Your example (opium) seems somewhat simplistic and misleading. (Of
course it is difficult to express one' ideas in short mails like
these!)
In any experiment in the strict and narrow sense, a hypothesis in
absolutely needed. Further, a hypothesis must initially present a
certain kind of question. Only questions which imply a YES or NO
answer will do. The next step (next act) is to transform the question
into an assertion. Which is then experimentally tested.
In order to perform a scientific experiment, there must be statements
(verbal ones) on some existent entities taken together with reasons to
believe that one/some/all other entitities will be affected in certain
ways. (Thus presenting some kind of regular relation(s). )
If it were just stated "Opium – sleep", then it is asserted that
there is (a well known substance) opium which is somehow related to (a
well known) state of mind called sleep. (The expression is commonly
called elliptic).
Now, this (elliptic) expression does not state what kind this asserted
relation is. (In English the word "sleep" as such does not by itself
reveal whether it is used as a noun or a verb. In Finnish, which is
verb dominated language , like (old) Latin and Greek were in this
respect. )
To my mind Molière (and Peirce) ridiculed just as well the kinds of
answers commonly offered and generally accepted to WHY – questions.
My claim is that this is a cultural issue, not a scientific one.
Peirce made great efforts to transform such (unconscious) habits of
thought into philosophically and experimentally relevant and
interesting ones.
(Unfortunately my studies on Cultural Paradigms and their relation to
sciences are published only in Finnish. Still, I can share thoughts
based on these investigations of mine. (In the hope that they are not
just exploited, but give credit, too)
Existential quantifiers, theory of probabilities etc.were a part of
this work by CSP. Just as were logical graphs.
-----
JFS: " …Peirce said that the act of replacing the verb to noun leads
to a hypothesis (hypostatic abstraction) that there exists something
that causes sleep. That hypothesis led chemists to discover morphine
as the substance with dormitive virtue. "
----
Is this a summary interpretation? Or did CSP truly write so? -
Either there is irony in the statement, or something is wrong. Or are
you using the verb "to discover" in the sense of "leaning how to make
in a laboratory a synthetic substance with the same kinds of effects
that opium, a natural product, was already known to possess" ?
"Opium facit dormire", opium makes people (and animals) sleep was a
well know fact for ages before CSP. – The "WHY" question, on the
other hand, is still not resolved. A chemical formula does not answer
the question to the full, because there are living beings involved. As
expressed by the word "sleep".
To heap of new questions still unanswered, belongs e.g.: Why do some
people need opioids to get any sleep? Why do not they spontaneously
fall asleep, as even babies are able to do so?
'It is because they are addicted', won't do. 'Before' and 'after' get
confused in those kinds of answers.
In experiments, even thought experiments, like actually doing EG's ,
time is essentially involved. Before – after. Even the logical form
celebrated by CSP: If – then, involves time.
You take up Chinese in a way which makes me assume you mainly know
Chinese in its present, mechanized and computerized form. Which
tends to hide from view the true nature of Chinese as a language,
worth clearing up in more detail.
It does not consist of "words" in the Western sense. Our categories
of nouns, verbs and adjectives just does not apply. Written Chinese
consists of concepts, not only presented in certain successions, but
also painted by hand with a brush IN A CERTAIN TRADITIONAL ORDER.
The order of strokes brings in meaning, stroke by stroke. So Chinese
marks resembl a theory, more than anything else. Then the "little
theories" are presented in a certain order, which sheads ligth on the
meaning of the whole. (The meaning of the whole gets transformed as
long as the writing in question goes on.)
In Japanese, there are two kinds of notations for writing down one's
voiced thoughts. One like in Chinese, another one like our Western
habits of writing down our thoughts.
Wittgenstein devoted his later work on traps our language games lure
us into. He was bilingual. But, being an engineer by education, his
education must have been not so good in humanities. (Having read a
lot there is biographicly, I have no reasons to think otherwise.
Pleased to get informed if I am mistaken.)
By now handwriting has become as good as obsolete, to my mind for the
detriment of all humankind. Writing down with ink makes it hard to
forget that writing down proceeds in an orderly manner, forwards. –
With computers no sense of effort accompanies making changes.
Still, expressing one's thoughts in sentences, or graphs etc. does
presents a hypostasis. We ourselves become able to take a critical
look on what we (or others) have taken to present a good formulation
for a thought.
But no thought gets ever a perfect formulation, a perfect
presentation. Not even poems. All thougths have contexts. All
questions have presuppositions, also some hidden ones. All answers
making sense AS answers to those particular questions depend on the
hidden presumptions.
In order to formulate a good hypothesis, hypostasis (i.e. writing
down proponents for a good hypothesis) is definitely needed. But just
as transient formulations to be critically inspected.
The dozens of empirical investigations I have been tutoring for
academic degrees by my students, have shown how much time and effort
is needed just in order to proceed from a theme to study into an
explicit question which is a) well-grounded on earlier research, b)
which is expressed in consistent theoretical concepts derived from a
sound theory, c) which may be studied and offered something new by the
methods selected, and d) elaboration of the methods and proceedings
demaded by the investigation in all practical details, and e)
methods of dealing with the kinds of outcomes from the investigation
(which may be figures presenting resuls of measurements, the so called
"raw data", or they may be recorded interviews or whatever).
All these must be provisionally fixed in a sensible and rational
manner before proceeding. It does not matter whether a so called
"quantitative" or a "qualitative" investigation is under study. A
systematic method of interpretation is needed in both cases.
In Natural Sciences it is commonplace to boast that this is all
completely "objective".
Well, it is not. – All scientists designing the experiments as well
as interpreting the results are human beings, thus may err. Even
collectively, for considerable time (as history of science has shown).
The experimental studies relying on statistical significance testing
have been shown (by expert statisticians) to make erronius inferences
quite commonly. (Some of them have been joking about these errors.)
One of the most common mistakes is to presume that if the statistical
test shows no statistical difference between zero hypothesis (claiming
no effect) and the experimental hypothesis (claiming a systematic
effect), then the zero effect would get some confirmation. – This
just is not the case. The very concept of statistical probability has
just got confused with something else. – Peirce has a lot to teach in
this respect.
To prove that (at least) one x exists, is to prove a possibility. To
prove that some (or many or plenty) x exists, means to take the
question into the realm of probabilities. To attempt to prove that
with all possible x, y is also the case, takes the question into the
realms of laws.
Well, then. There are many kinds of laws. If we believe CSP, all laws
involve some spontaneity and chance. – The case of logical laws has
not been thoroughly examined in this respect.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 11.12.2017 17:58:
Kirsti,
I changed the subject line to "Contexts in language and logic"
That was the title of the slides I cited, and I'm sorry that I
forgot to include the name of the directory, "talks". Following
is the correct URL: http://jfsowa.com/talks/contexts.pdf
So a little note on the wording in:
[JFS] In summary, the range of contexts for writing or using EGs is
as open ended as the contexts for using any other kinds of signs.
It's best to distinguish the act of drawing an EG from any use or
speech act, such as assertion.
Shouldn't the last word be "asserting", thus using the verb, not
the noun? This may sound trifle, but I do think it is important
to make clear whether and when one is talking about an act, or
an entity.
The distinction between a verb form such as 'asserting' and a noun
such as 'assertion' is what Peirce called *hypostatic abstraction*.
To illustrate the point, Peirce used a term that Molière invented
as a joke in "Le Malade Imaginaire":
Quare Opium facit dormire: … Quia est in eo Virtus dormitiva.
Why does opium make one sleep: Because in it is dormitive virtue.
Molière considered the term 'dormitive virtue' as a joke because
it doesn't explain anything. Nominalists call it a meaningless name.
But Peirce said that the act of replacing the verb by the noun
leads to a hypothesis (hypostatic abstraction) that there exists
something that causes sleep. That hypothesis led chemists to
discover morphine as the substance with dormitive virtue.
Further research led to a family of related chemicals named opioids.
Among those chemicals are natural hormones named endorphins (from
the phrase 'endogenous morphine'), which bind to opiate receptors
in the brain.
The act of turning a verb into a noun led chemists to search for
something named by that noun. That research explains why opium has
dormitive virtue and why people become addicted to taking opioids.
And by the way, the English noun 'entity' is derived from the Latin
noun 'entitas', which is derived from the verb form 'ens' (being).
In Chinese, the same word form may be used as a noun, a verb, or
an adjective. But in IndoEuropean languages, differences in the
word form affect the way people think and act about the referent.
John
