Jon AS, Gary F, and Edwina, No two people think alike, and anybody as complex and insightful as Peirce has a wide range of different ways of thinking. I agree that discussions about methodologies outside of any particular context are of minor interest to this list. But the most important methodologies that are relevant to the interpretation of Peirce's writings are Peirce's own. The interpretation of what any author said or did depends critically on "collateral knowledge" about that author's way of thinking. I won't attempt to explain Peirce's metaphor of "mind fusion", but it certainly includes much more than a list of quotations. . GF> The only 'method' I've seen that JAS outlines, is to provide quotations from Peirce texts. Unfortunately, that's true. Peirce drew a distinction between a naturalist and a scientist. A naturalist describes appearances and classifies specimens on the basis of their resemblance to other specimens. Jon processes quotations as if they were butterflies -- sticking pins through them and displaying them in a sample tray. ET> When some of us, for example, ask repeatedly for real world examples of the interpretations offered - and don't get them, are we supposed to accept that the conclusions of this rather authoritarian method... must be accepted as valid? That's my primary complaint. Naturalists provide an important service in collecting data. But scientists take the next steps of induction and abduction to develop theories. Even more important than the theories is the testing by deduction, prediction, and observation of multiple *examples*. Without testing, the theories are unfounded hypotheses. GF> newer members of the list who may not immediately recognize the futility [of some of these debates]. They deserve more substantial content on the Peirce list, and indeed require it if they are going to learn as much from participation Absolutely! We have to demonstrate that studying Peirce involves much more work than just butterfly collecting. He wrote many articles about methodology, and they all involve the fundamental issues of relating perception to action -- and the intermediate steps of induction, abduction, deduction, testing, observation, and repeat. That kind of hard work can only be demonstrated and *learned* by applying Peirce's ideas to serious problems. JAS> I continue to find these strictly methodological criticisms tiresome... The only way to ascertain Peirce's way of thinking in the first place is interpret his words according to is way of thinking. It's certainly tiresome. We have to get out of this rut of just butterfly collecting. William James spent half a century listening to and reading Peirce's words, and he never grasped the principles that Peirce spent years in trying to teach him. The reason why James couldn't understand the words is that he never worked his way through the words to the thinking behind them. JAS> quoting Peirce's own words is the best--really, the only--method for supporting one's interpretations of his writings No!!!! That statement shows a hopelessly misguided interpretation of everything Peirce wrote. His words are necessary as the starting point. But if they were sufficient, William James would have been the world's leading expert on Peirce. It's impossible to understand any text on logic, mathematics, or science of any kind without doing the homework -- the exercises at the end of each chapter of a textbook or the detailed analysis of the mathematics in a research paper. Peirce did that kind of work on every subject he studied from childhood to the end. Peirce developed his ideas through a lifetime of working on difficult problems in mathematics, science, logic, and engineering -- starting with his father in early childhood, with his Sunday dinners with the leading intellectuals who visited Harvard, his 30 years of science and engineering with USCGS, his teaching at JHU, and his various lectures and discussions with colleagues. Since you are an engineer, you must have done a similar kind of homework to earn a degree. Since then, you must have done some related work on the job. I'm sure that you learned much more by finishing a difficult engineering problem than you knew by just reading a book. The same principle is true in studying Peirce. Just reading his words is sufficient for a superficial knowledge -- the ability to parrot the words. But understanding requires serious work in applying his writings to some challenging problems. I've been doing that in books, articles, and lectures for years. Following is the most recent lecture in which I applied some of Peirce's ideas: http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf . The last page of eswc.pdf has more references to articles that apply Peirce's ideas to various problems in logic, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and computer software. John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
