Edwina, List: Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point. Merely *stating* disagreement should never be sufficient, by itself, to convince anyone. A critique can only "logically and factually stand on its own merits" if it is supported by a *better* argument than the position being criticized.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > JAS, list > > I disagree with your comment: > > "If someone disagrees with what I post on the List--whether a particular > reading of Peirce's words, or my own suggestion "inspired by" them--then > the proper response is to offer a better argument, instead of just > complaining about mine." > > I don't think that critique of arguments should require offering a 'better > argument'; I think that a critique ought to stand on its own. For example, > I disagree with your [JAS's] argument for the semeiosic reality of God > [where you move from 'the Universe is a 'perfusion of signs'---to 'all > signs are connected and thus can be understood as A sign [one sign] '---to > 'a sign must have an external object ---- to 'JAS calls this external > Object 'God'. > > I don't see that I should offer a 'better argument' for this hypothesis, > since I disagree with and thus, critique each of the steps that you take. I > think a critique should logically and factually stand on its own merits and > not require a 'better argument' to validate it. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
