John,
I find your last two posts informative and in keeping with how I try to
understand Peirce. I agree strongly about the intimate link with action
(actually, in my view it translates into the wellspring of Peirce's
thoughts about belief). The importance of quantification as a basis for
the emergence of science and a re-discovery of Aristotle also resonates.
Thanks for citing others and less emphasis on your own writings.
But I think it is time to be pragmatic about this ongoing debate. Jon
and the Gary's, and I'm sure many others on the list, appreciate the
assembly of quotes and the inspection of literal interpretations. I have
learned much at times and discovered gems of quotation from these
contributions. You may argue, I sometimes do, that context and
application in the real world needs to be brought into the discussion,
but that is not their approach, not their 'methodology'. The mindsets or
worldviews of these disparate camps can not be argued, I believe, into
confluence. Excoriating the 'other side' for its lack of a 'true'
understanding of Peirce's real meanings or even an appreciation for the
methodeutic, I think we have seen clearly, is not achieving actual
understanding nor comity.
Not all of us have equivalent time (or interest) to contribute to this
list. It takes time and effort to marshal the evidence, assemble the
quotes, write the narrative, to be a voice on this list. For me,
personally, I have come to the conclusion that I will contribute when it
is important to me, and I will ignore when it is not (or at least not
actively participate). In effect, I realize this means the list is often
dominated by voices and viewpoints of lesser interest to me. I sincerely
doubt that Peirce would, today, find social media and mailing lists to
correspond to the community he so often spoke of as being the decider of
the progress toward truth. If we put ourselves 100 years into the
future, what sources will our successors look to as the basis of truth?
My guess it will not be mailing lists and social media.
I think James is a great example. Despite that James did not appear to
ever really, truly grok Peirce, he also was one of his most public
defenders and providers of financial support when in need. It seems like
Peirce must have managed that relationship with James pretty darn well.
Or been such a genius that he was a force not to be denied . . . . In
the end, we will never really know, will we? The only basis we have to
judge is the information left behind to posterity. My bet is that
mailing lists will not rank high.
Best, Mike
On 6/9/2020 5:50 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
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
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
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.
