BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly
self-defines yourself as very particular about exact references -
'selected' from what I wrote - which thereby changed the meaning -
and declared that I wrote:
1] " theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by
people who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the
seminar room' "
But I did not say the above.
I never said: 'theorizing is an irrelevant exercise'. I said "if one
substitutes one 'name/term' for another - that is an irrelevant
exercise'. Substitution of terms is not theorizing - so - why did
you change my words? Why did you remove 'substitutes' and insert
'theorizing'?
2] Nor did I say that theorizing is " undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room' . Where did I say this???
Nor did I say that I was against theorizing. What I wrote was:
"As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing
against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in
the actual world - to explain this real world?
As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."
3] I see nothing wrong, as a researcher, with asking whether a
theory can be applied, functionally, to explain the real world.
But I do see something wrong - on the basis of not only charity but
integrity - with changing the words someone writes, with leaving out
phrases, with putting in other words and phrases - to incorrectly
present someone's comments. Why did you do this?
Edwina
On Thu 14/05/20 4:58 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading
comments about it.
Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided
links to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see
the complete contexts for themselves. That is precisely why I always
include the CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with
everything that I quote from Peirce.
ET: Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a
few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
Again, I provided links to the original posts and only quoted the
portions that I considered to be especially inappropriate. Why fill
up an e-mail with lengthy excerpts?
ET: I specifically have said that what I am against is when people
don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain
actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from
your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing.
First, where did I make any such assertion? Specific examples,
please.
Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here. It sure
sounds to me like a demand that any and all theorizing must include
"how these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in
the real world."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS
You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it.
I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore
this fact and present a false image of me. Here's the quote from me
that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the
totality. Why did you do so?
EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real
situations in the actual world - to explain this real world?
As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."
--------------------
My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
against theories and theorizing;
My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them - that I consider that
theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room'
Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST
theories or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing
is 'undertaken only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please
stop picking out bits and pieces and making my meaning completely
different.
I specifically have said that what I am against is when people
don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain
actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from
your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. It baffles
me why you stick so tenaciously to such a misinterpretation - despite
my actual words!
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
