Michael, List: MM: 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.
John Sowa and I have had fundamental disagreements about methodology for well over a year now, unfortunately resulting in multiple contentious exchanges during that time. MM: But that doesn't mean that there is a flaw in his overall method per se. Exactly; as I keep saying, the proper response by anyone who disagrees with my conclusions is to make a better argument, rather than just complaining about my approach. MM: 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. I am not going to track down and rehash those past disputes, which were sadly effective distractions from the topics at hand. I would strongly prefer to move forward with substantive discussions instead. MM: 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. I believe that John Sowa greatly overstates the degree to which I allegedly offer quotes out of context. In any case, it is not feasible to include large excerpts in an e-mail discussion, and if someone believes that I am misusing a particular quote, then that person has the burden of *demonstrating *that my interpretation is unwarranted by the original context--i.e., making a better argument. MM: 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. The debates are rarely about there being only one "right" interpretation of only one particular passage, but rather whether and how we can integrate different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our own words rather than his. John Sowa recently claimed <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00118.html> that "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to support this projection of his own feelings onto Peirce. MM: 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 an important point. While Peirce was a good writer, my sense is likewise that he sometimes had trouble conveying his ideas in ways that he considered satisfactory. With that in mind, in my view there is nothing inappropriate about making connections between them that he himself did not happen to highlight. The secondary literature abounds with such plausible conjectures. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:19 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
----------------------------- 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 .
