Actually “incomplete” is a better description than incorrect. Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 22, 2019, at 13:15, Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jon, > > No, we are talking about the same thing: a relationship that he considered > logical, but in fact not. This has nothing to do with the English verb per > se, but with the logical structure of any act of giving that includes three > surface arguments. The point is that Peirce got the *logic* of giving wrong - > for any language. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Apr 22, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Dan, Jeff, List: >> >> DE: I am saying simply that in some cases of lexical analysis modern >> mathematical logic has tools at its disposal that enable analyses >> empirically superior to the the common picture of the valency of some verbs. >> >> Again, we are talking about two different things. When Peirce repeatedly >> characterized giving as irreducibly triadic, he was not referring to the >> English verb, but rather a specific logical relation--which is more >> fundamental than, and thus independent of, its expression in any particular >> language or other Sign System. In an Existential Graph, no matter what >> symbol we use to label the Spot for that relation, it will always have >> exactly three Pegs. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:11 AM Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Jeff, >>> >>> Let's not read too much into what I said. I am not claiming that triadic >>> relations are reduceable (at least not in all cases) to dyadic relations. >>> Not at all in fact. Nor am I urging the thesis that Quine, Church, Turing, >>> etc. are superior in any way to Peirce. >>> >>> I am saying simply that in some cases of lexical analysis modern >>> mathematical logic has tools at its disposal that enable analyses >>> empirically superior to the the common picture of the valency of some >>> verbs,. Having said that, it may simply be that Peirce's comments on 'give' >>> hold at the level of transitivity, though perhaps not at the level of >>> valency. I am still thinking about that possibilty. >>> >>> Peirce may have made mistakes in many places. This should not bother >>> anyone, though, so long as the mistakes are not at a level that threaten >>> his overall program. I certainly do not believe that any improvements in >>> modern logic and math threaten Peirce's program. >>> >>> Church invented the lambda calculus, identical in power to a universal >>> Turing machine.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus) That is a >>> significant discovery/invention/advance. But this in no way means that >>> Church or Turing or Quine were superior to Peirce or that their systems >>> should be taken over his. It means nothing more than that these tools of >>> modern logic, in conjunction with modern linguistics research, offer >>> insights into *some* areas of language that Peirce could not have achieved >>> (and did not). But nothing that they did invalidates his triadic system, >>> his theory of semiotics, etc. >>> >>> Some verbs operate differently than Peirce thought, at least at the level >>> of semantic decomposition, even though their syntactic behavior may conform >>> well to his predictions. Not a threat to him. But perhaps a tool for better >>> understanding him in modern terms. >>> >>> The issues are nuanced. But I believe that sorting through them ultimately >>> makes Peirce more relevant than ever to our understanding of language, >>> logic, etc. >>> >>> Dan >>>> On Apr 21, 2019, at 9:28 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dan, List, >>>> >>>> I, for one, don't share your view that Peirce missed the boat on this one. >>>> In making the assertion, are you claiming that modern mathematical logic >>>> demonstrates that relations that might appear to be genuinely triadic--- >>>> such as giving, or mediating or thinking--can be entirely reduced to >>>> dyadic relations using logical resources that do not, themselves, employ >>>> those very relations? Or, are you saying that this has been shown in >>>> modern philosophical logic? >>>> >>>> In both areas of inquiry, I do not think the matter is--by any >>>> means--somehow now settled. Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, >>>> there are plenty of reasons to doubt the assertions of Quine, Church, >>>> Turing, et al, on this matter. >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> Jeffrey Downard >>>> Associate Professor >>>> Department of Philosophy >>>> Northern Arizona University >>>> (o) 928 523-8354 >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >>
----------------------------- 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 .
