BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.
That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is
this necessarily the problem??
I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that
promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are
acceptable. I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is
both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some
are more valid and accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon
does exist!
I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' or
even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection
of diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in
focus...It would be nice for more diversity - not in views but in
focus - ie, moving Peirce into examining the real world in areas such
as AI, physics, biology - but that's not what I see as the problem.
I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as
'given' that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of
Peirce - then, how does one's Argument develop this?
Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That -
after all, is one method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly
exhausts the reader into silence but - is it in itself proof? It
certainly seems reasonable; after all - quotations-are-quotations, so
to speak. But- is this an actual argument and does this method include
understanding?
Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's
post is rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the
whole argument is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its
natural sense] is merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other
methods include of course, Selectivity, where the other person's
argument is dismissed by selecting one small part of it as
'problematic' and thus, the whole argument is thrown out. And so
on... These are hardly methods unique to this list but are found
wherever mankind gets together to argue and debate. We aren't pure
and exempt.
Interestingly enough, on a list devoted to semiosis, ie, information
and cognition - the misunderstandings are huge. In my case, for
example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said
that. My view is that theories are vital [as 3ns] but are empty
unless expressed within the actualities of the real world of 2ns.
That is - theories must be examined as to whether they actually,
truthfully, represent and inform us about the real world. Theories
can't survive on logic alone. But - despite my repeated assertions
of this view - I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! That's a neat
defensive tactic, using Tenacity, to not deal with my concern!
Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar!
I certainly don't want a 'charitable interpretation' of my position
- leading to the misinterpretation on this list that I am
anti-theorist. Nor do I want relativism where 'anything goes' and we
assume we are all really OK guys.
What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly
valid comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To
Theory. That doesn't solve the issue. It just kicks the can out the
door, so to speak. But it's still there..albeit rusty and distant.
So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes,
charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation.
Edwina
On Thu 14/05/20 7:19 AM , [email protected] sent:
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 .
