List,
Hopefully a pause for breath is a kind of "outcome" that isn't final.
It always struck me a constellation of overlapping / intermeshing formal
languages would perform the very function Joe describes.
Taking "methodology" to mean "method" I'm sure instances of lack of
method (rather than just method) need to be critiqued on their own terms
on a case by case basis. Sharing insights in to "the universe and
everything" isn't suited to be turned into a blame game.
Given I am (as yet) on the back foot in scholarly methods I treasure
copious quotations. We must of course pick up where we see a conclusion
as not following well enough. The value to all readers is in the
exercise and the exposition by all participants, not just the initiator.
Time (an enthusiasm of CSP) is on our side; in it reason, prudence,
perseverence and judgment can flourish: these are not zero-sum games.
When I attend a seminar room (informal ones) I always hear questions
like "when you said such & such would the Big Bang theory / Punctuated
Equilibrium theory be an example of that?" I've often seen eminent
featured speakers carry off "being stumped" with honest aplomb. It
doesn't matter who brought the universe in with them - I always find it
there.
I hope it's permissible for any list member to pitch in at any point and
not only those whose names are at the start of the post. In 1 st
century Aramaic speaking society the quality of questions was considered
a great enhancement and not a detraction.
Newman's degrees of inference require that we each see what weight we
provisionally wish to give across a range of hypothetical ideas /
concepts / notions. This is not dried or (often) even cut. Tentative
is another vital quality.
To impute tentativeness when it apparently wasn't projected can be
tactful.
Given that logic is huge and our idea of infinity has to be (as I see
it) an approximation to an approximation, can a notation be developed
for paradox?
In The nature of mathematics (1933) Max Black cites L E J Brouwer's
demonstrating that excessive attempts are made to impose an excluded
middle when unwarranted.
What we should be doing IMO is not so much "agreeing to differ" as
leaving our ideas on the table for continued evaluation (at everybody's
leisure). If we don't want to agree do we have to say more than "I
shall think about it" or even just stay momentarily silent?
The logic of time is that now is not forever. I haven't responded, yet.
Here's to all our yets!
Additionally, I heartily recommend visual and spatial thinking to all.
P.S I'd love it if participants can translate the above into your
favourite notations / technical terminology.
Michael Mitchell
former translator, UK
On 2020-05-16 3:43, joseph simpson wrote:
All:
This is a very sad outcome.
The tension between formal language (mathematics) and informal
language can become quite strong and polarizing.
It seems to me that a key challenge, for the list, is providing enough
common context to create a common collection of semantic values.
The vast array of existing material associated with C. S. Peirce may
make the development of a common context almost impossible.
Given this set of conditions, it appears that formal language would be
the natural mechanism used to evaluate any proposed collection of
informal, common semantic values.
In any case, I was just beginning to enjoy the real world, pragmatic
examples that were beginning to appear on the list.
Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,
Joe
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:46 AM John F. Sowa <[email protected]>
wrote:
Gary R,
As Mike said, please stop.
GR>To be perfectly clear, in my estimation this horrible 'harangue'
began about a year ago, shortly after John Sowa joined the list and
began harassing Jon Alan Schmidt, not on any _substance_ of any of
his post, but on his _methodology_.
Thank you for providing more evidence of your blanket condemnations.
I had subscribed to Peirce-L when Joe Ransdell was running it. But
I lost the connection when I switched from one email service to
another. And I picked it up again quite a few years ago.
I never harrassed Jon. On the contrary, I pointed out errors that
were caused by his methodology. Peirce was an outstanding logician
and mathematician, and Jon did not have the background to interpret
certain passages correctly. But Jon would never admit that there
might be an interpretation that was different from his own.
I apologize for trying to correct Jon's errors. I promise that I
won't do that again.
End of story.
John
--
Joe Simpson
“REASONABLE PEOPLE ADAPT THEMSELVES TO THE WORLD.
UNREASONABLE PEOPLE ATTEMPT TO ADAPT THE WORLD TO THEMSELVES.
ALL PROGRESS, THEREFORE, DEPENDS ON UNREASONABLE PEOPLE.”
George Bernard Shaw
Git Hub link:
https://github.com/jjs0sbw
Research Gate link:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3
YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw
Web Site:
https://systemsconcept.org/
-----------------------------
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 .
