Dear John, list,
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, for I see no assertion on your part. The question I have after reading your post is, What (would you or Peirce say) makes a phenomenon valuable for science if there are numerous unexplained facts that can be subject to exact analysis but not enough time to examine them all? That is, how do you go from a strange, isolated and unexplained fact useful to science to “a very serious problem *requiring* respectful treatment”, which renders it useful? For I don’t see how *only* theories that can have any value for the theorist are those from which can be deduced exact predictions capable of exact verification (presuming there exist those who refuse to acknowledge sensible limits, and there are those who do so exist). Thanks, Jerry R On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:34 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > In CP 1.115, Peirce wrote: "At present, while the existence of > telepathy cannot be said to be established, all scientific men > are obliged by observed facts to admit that it presents at least > a very serious problem requiring respectful treatment." > > > CP 6.159. I may be asked whether my theory would be favorable or > > otherwise to telepathy. I have no decided answer to give to this. > > At first sight, it seems unfavorable. Yet there may be other modes > > of continuous connection between minds other than those of time > > and space. > > > > CP 6.559. Belief in telepathy ought to be ranked as variation > > of spiritualism. > > > > CP 7.598. Let me endeavor to explain the attitude of the physicist. > > Many people imagine that there is a certain class of facts which it > > is repugnant to the physicist to acknowledge. This is not so. If > > there were such a class of facts, the phenomena connected with > > radium would fall within it. Yet there has been no disposition to > > ignore these phenomena. But the physicist recognizes that a phenomenon > > is of no use to him unless both it and its conditions can be subjected > > to exact analysis. Moreover, the only theories that can have any value > > for him are those from which can be deduced exact predictions capable > > of exact verification. As long as a fact stands isolated and strange, > > it is next to impossible to make sure that it is a fact, and quite > > impossible to render it useful to science. > > As an example, I'll mention some unexplained phenomena about the > composer, Percy Grainger. He was born in Australia, but he lived > in White Plains, NY, from 1921 until his death in 1961. His house > is now on the National Registry of Historical Places. > > I have some friends, musicians and composers, who are members of > the Percy Grainger Society. And I have attended some concerts > and lectures at the Grainger House, which is about a dozen miles > from my home. > > One of them was studying some of Grainger's manuscripts late in the > evening. He spread them out on the dining-room table, which was the > same place where Percy would have written them. And he had an uncanny > feeling that Percy was looking over his shoulder. It seemed that he > was trying to give some friendly advice. > > A few years later, the PG Society installed motion-activated video > cameras, at the front door, back door, and some of the rooms. The > cameras rarely showed any activity. But on 2 July 2016, there were > strange occurrences at 8:32 pm and 9:23 pm: > https://percygraingeramerica.org/blog/4674266. > > Both occurred in the dining room -- streaks of light above the > table where Percy wrote his MSS and where the musicians studied > them many years after he died. Unexplained phenomena: > > 1. Stray light, by itself, would not trigger the motion detectors > of the camera. They could only be triggered by physical motion. > > 2. Light from the outside, even a laser beam, would shine on a wall > or the ceiling. But these lights were bright streaks in the > middle of the room above the dining-room table. > > 3. The motion detectors that turned on the camera also turned on > some lights. But the streaks of light were brighter than > anything in the room that reflected the camera lights. > > 4. The motion detectors of the cameras at the front and back doors > were not triggered and no other videos were made that evening. > > 5. The experts at the company that made the cameras could not > explain what turned on the camera or what caused the streaks > of light that were recorded by the camera. > > As Peirce wrote in CP 7.598, "As long as a fact stands isolated and > strange, it is next to impossible to make sure that it is a fact, > and quite impossible to render it useful to science." > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
