Jon, Charity is an important virtue in dealing with people. What made me angry is Gary R's attitude that he is an authority who is capable of making blanket judgments about the accuracy of anybody else's arguments. He has the right to point out what he belives are mistakes, but he has an obligation to explain exactly what mistake was made in any particular instance. (See below for options.) But mathematics is the universe of pure possibility. The truths of mathematics do not depend in any way on what any humans may think. JAS> John Sowa has asserted, "In logic and mathematics, there is no such thing as charity ... No amount of charity can correct a mistake in logic or mathematics ... When it comes to logic and mathematics, charity does not apply." That's true.. Mathematics is so precise, that mathematicians, scientists, and engineers use proof checkers to test their computations. Google "Mathematica" and "Mathlab". A computation is either correct or incorrect. There is nothing in between. That is a fundamental principle of mathematics. Aliens in a far off galaxy would recognize the same theorems, but they would undoubtedly use very different notations. JAS> I also noted recently that according to Peirce, logic and mathematics are by no means exempt from fallibility, so I believe that charity does apply even in these rigorous fields. I agree that Peirce said that. But he was admitting that his own mathematical abilities, athough quite high, were merely human. No mathematician ever asks for or gives charity about the subject matter. If someone points out a mistake, a mathematician immediately recognizes it. The only charity is in the human to human interaction: The one who made the mistake immediately apologizes, and the one who found it is sympathetic. JAS> As I pointed out in my response at the time, we rarely (if ever) engage in rigorous "proofs" on the List; the discussion is mostly about philosophy, including the philosophy of logic and the philosophy of mathematics, where charity surely does apply. I admit that word 'charity' is a traditional term, But it's confusing because it blurs issues about the source of a discrepancy: a mistake, as in mathematics; an ambiguitiy, as in most words in ordinary language; a fallacy, as itemized by Aristotle and other logicians; a failure to recognize some implicit assumption that is required for a sound argument; or a deliberate choice to adopt a different set of axioms and definitions. But note Peirce's many comments about 'metaphysicians'. He was sympathetic to people who honestly wanted to learn. That's a good kind of charity. But he was not very sympathetic toward many others he criticized. 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 [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 .
