John, Gary,
I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a
result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method. Also that a
similar situation has recurred before. But that doesn't mean that there
is a flaw in his overall method per se.
I'm inferring this from recent comments by participants to this topic.
I think both you and JAS should carry on in your underlying methods as
such.
Please can you provide hyperlinks from the archive, or similar exact
reference, so that list members can continue to benefit from your
arguments in each case, given these are held on server specially for our
continued reference.
In natural language we point out, say, "method of JAS" and then again,
"result from instance of application by JAS of method of JAS". The
string of items in the latter phrase constitute context of occurrence
but not a watertight causal string.
Now the method of JAS is to pull elements from diverse contexts within
CSP's oeuvre, and then list members express differences in view
regarding the intermeshing of the charitable interpretations of the
diverse elements. But what is wrong with several such viewpoints? They
add to each other and don't detract. None of them has to knock out the
others, as if it was the Wimbledon Tournament. Would to do so, be
excessive application of excluded middle or non-contradiction? Slightly
too binary?
While we have a class of instances and while such a class is a
universal, and a concrete in CSP's terms (because generalities are
observed in the imagination), that doesn't provide us with a rule as to
either the quality of argument in each instance within the class, nor
the range of applications of the original points (of CSP) cited.
I suspect, since CSP was inclined to talk about "the universe and
everything", his points do interrelate (in his own mind), but since he
himself struggled in expression, everlasting discussion is essential.
This is the path of research to not block, I think. To produce variant
interpretations, neither is blocking nor needs blocking, by appearing -
unintendedly - to impugn methods within the huge range of methods
needed.
Gary, I would value if you could add a hyperlink or some equally
effective exact reference in cases like the last few so that we can
study more easily the quality of points being made all round. I think
you started to say the same as me about John's response to JAS, but then
appeared (against your intention) to do the same towards him by you not
providing detail.
Practical suggestion to all please:
Can we add next to or below, if giving such a hyperlink, the author as
well as time and date. This might obviate copying of entire posts when
having difficulty focussing on which is the core section at any time.
(But some have already been chopping up quoted messages nicely though.)
For me this means I've got to make future changes to my clipboard
methods.
I'd also like to offer the thought that meditations offered are at best
slightly tentative, but that only instances of fallacies need actual
refuting. And that CSP liked Ockham because he argued well in a
generally defective ambit.
Please would everybody including Gary, pick these worded arguments of
mine to pieces.
Michael Mitchell
former translator
U.K.
On 2020-05-14 5:09, John F. Sowa wrote:
Jon,
The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author
are true. ... "it constrains
the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's
sayings."
I have never claimed that any of your statements were meaningless or
irrational. What I criticized was the strength and methods of the
argument. For the arguments I objected to, I showed that a charitable
interpretation of what Peirce wrote led to a conclusion that was
different from a charitable interpretation of what you wrote.
JAS> We (supposedly) agree that it is inappropriate to make sweeping
judgments about who is (or is not) capable of understanding Peirce's
writings and discussing them intelligently. We (apparently) disagree
about who among us has been guilty of doing exactly that.
I never said that you were incapable of understanding Peirce. But I
did criticize your method of stringing together multiple quotations
from different contexts. I did not claim that was irrational.
But I did say that the some of the critical quotations were taken out
of contexts where charity toward Peirce would give them a different
interpretation.
JAS> On the contrary, Gary R. is consistently an exemplary model of
the "generosity of attitude" that he advocates as List moderator.
No. A list moderator has a right to admonish participants about
making inappropriate statements. But a moderator has an obligation to
quote the statement(s) explicitly and state exactly why they are
inappropriate.
But Gary R made a blanket statement about my ability to interpret
Peirce without stating a single example where my statement was wrong
or inappropriate. He also made a blanket statement that your
arguments were superior to mine. On several occasions, he said that
he agreed with you and not with me. But he never explained why any
particular point I made was wrong.
I never complained about anybody who might disagree with me for one
reason or another. But Gary R stepped way out of bounds when he made
a blanket condemnation of my writings without ever showing a single
example that was inappropriate. ...
-----------------------------
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 .
