I have generally assumed that decency is verifiable by looking at a decent action or statement and having some basis for judging. I wish science was simply assumed as a reasonable approach to evaluating all behavior. Ethics and aesthetics are part of science I assume.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, list > > Exactly. I note also in 1.55, "all probable reasoning is despised. > ...There is no room for doubt, which can only paralyze action. But the > scientific spirit requires a man to be at all times ready to dump his whole > cartload of beliefs, the moment experience is against them" > > But what if the issue is instead, one of interpretation, rather than > a search for the natural laws of science? That is, if we are engaged in the > study of history, of philosophy - I'm not sure that there is a > final 'truthful interpretation'. I think there is a consensual > interpretation, such that we can for example, differentiate the basic > axioms of Plato and Aristotle - but, I'm puzzled about 'the truth' in such > areas. > > > Edwina > > > > On Sat 04/08/18 11:02 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose [email protected] sent: > > Peirce: CP 1.57 Cross-Ref:†† > > 57. When men begin to rationalize about their conduct, the > first effect is to deliver them over to their passions and produce the most > frightful demoralization, especially in sexual matters. Thus, among the > Greeks, it brought about pæderasty and a precedence of public women over > private wives. But ultimately the subconscious part of the soul, being > stronger, regains its predominance and insists on setting matters right. > Men, then, continue to tell themselves they regulate their conduct by > reason; but they learn to look forward and see what conclusions a given > method will lead to before they give their adhesion to it. In short, it is > no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but > it is the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be. This is > sham reasoning. In short, as morality supposes self-control, men learn that > they must not surrender themselves unreservedly to any method, without > considering to what conclusions it will lead them. But this is utterly > contrary to the single-mindedness that is requisite in science. In order > that science may be successful, its votaries must hasten to surrender > themselves at discretion to experimental inquiry, in advance of knowing > what its decisions may be. There must be no reservations. > > Peirce: CP 1.58 Cross-Ref:†† > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
