BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I'd like to comment on some of your points in your response to
Robert Marty --
1. You, I think, missed, Robert's and Bernard Morand's points about
what BM refers to as using quotations, where " an abusive usage makes
them authoritative (dogmatic) arguments, lacking of textual
context, and despite the fact that Peirce himself claimed to be
a faillibilist."
Taking a quotation out of context and inserting it into a different
context, which is a semiosic action, obviously changes the meaning of
the whole argument.
But, also, BM wrote: "To my sense this tendency to restrict the
discussions to quotes, multiplying them infinitely, repeating
them as if they were mantras impoverishes the debates."
First - flinging quotations at someone is not an argument. It
actually is a tactic to silence discussion.
What is this practice disloyal to? I see it as disloyal to science
and genuine discussion - as well as Peirce. After all, your statement
of " being faithful to Peirce's own texts when attributing specific
views to him" is semiosically incorrect. You cannot claim [though I
know you try to do so] that YOUR readings of Peirce are 'the correct,
truthful reading' - since ALL readings are semiosic and thus,
interpretations are derived via your own mediative mind and knowledge
base. You seem to insist on a direct dyadic transference of Peirce's
views...to yourself. How is this possible? How can you justify your
self-assertion that YOU, above all, Have-Direct-Knowledge of Peirce,
while others are fallible readers? I think this practice is a
problem.
2] RM's reference to John Sowa is not an 'appeal to authority' but
an evaluation of another scholar's work. The use of an 'appeal to
authority' fallacy only occurs when it is used to justify an argument
- and RM's reference to John Sowa was not in the context of an
argument but as an example of someone else who has complained about
the 'discursive practices' on this List where posters use Peircean
texts as 'dogmatic mantras'.
3] I also disagree that the only 'moral authority' is Gary Richmond.
That's unfair to him and an assertion of the irresponsibility of all
posters on this List. This is not a day-care centre. We are all,
presumably, adults on this list, and therefore, are each of us,
responsible for our own behaviour and our own interactions with
others. Therefore, for anyone of us to openly condemn, sneer at,
mock, another , insist that that person speaks only as a 'tribal
member' ; is too incorrect to respond to- and so on, - is our own
responsibility.
Therefore - your claim that 'it's not me, it's others who are doing
bad things' is not an excuse for the problems on this list.
And your refusal to accept that others - who are adults and scholars
- are possibly making valid claims about these problems, with your
assertion of:" yet another emotional rant full of baseless
allegations and empty complaints- means that the problems will
remain.
Edwina
On Sat 28/08/21 3:04 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Robert, List:
RM: This is a shameful manipulation that everyone can see. It
offends scientific ethics.
There is nothing shameful, manipulative, offensive, unscientific, or
unethical about highlighting and emphasizing a portion of a direct
quotation to make a particular point, especially in a context where
it is being ignored or at least discounted. It is incontrovertible
that according to Peirce in CP 3.559 (and elsewhere), the
mathematician frames a pure hypothesis without inquiring or caring
whether it agrees with the actual facts or not.
RM: All these absolutely disloyal practices that Bernard Morand has
just denounced ...
Disloyal to whom? What matters here is being faithful to Peirce's
own texts when attributing specific views to him. Why not just
acknowledge disagreement with him where one thinks that he got
something wrong?
RM: ... after many others, and not the least, such as John Sowa,
whose awareness of Peirce and scientific stature is indisputable,
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Peirce sharply
contrasts the method of authority with the method of science.
RM: I note that the debate has fallen to a level unworthy of
Charles S. Peirce to whom this list is dedicated, and this without
any moral authority intervening.
I agree, but we presumably have very different perceptions of who is
responsible for the degradation of the discourse here. Besides, the
only relevant "moral authority" is the List moderator, Gary Richmond,
and it is entirely up to him whether, when, and how to intervene.
RM: However, I am not going to give up... simply, I would not waste
another minute fighting arguments biased by such practices...
In other words, a substantive rebuttal is not possible, so instead
there is yet another emotional rant full of baseless allegations and
empty complaints.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 4:37 AM robert marty wrote:
List,
JAS > . "As for CP 3.559, there is no"magic trick" involved in
simply recognizing that its last sentence is a summary of the entire
paragraph."
Here is that last sentence. This is indeed a summary of CP 3.559.
But you, JAS, summarize this summary to the only part I underlined in
bold:
" Thus, the mathematician does two very different things: namely,
he first frames a pure hypothesis stripped of all features which do
not concern the drawing of consequences from it, and this he does
without inquiring or caring whether it agrees with the actual facts
or not (1); and, secondly, he proceeds to draw necessary
consequences from that hypothesis."
This is a shameful manipulation that everyone can see. It offends
scientific ethics.
After the hodgepodge of quotes created in a few minutes that would
require a whole book to answer,
After the "improved" quote from EDT kindly qualified as a humoristic
touch by Gary Richmond,
After this "reconstructed" quote to cover up an operation to revise
the foundations of Peirce's thought,
All these absolutely disloyal practices that Bernard Morand has just
denounced after many others, and not the least, such as John Sowa,
whose awareness of Peirce and scientific stature is indisputable,
I note that the debate has fallen to a level unworthy of Charles S.
Peirce to whom this list is dedicated, and this without any moral
authority intervening.
However, I am not going to give up... simply, I would not waste
another minute fighting arguments biased by such practices...
Following serenely ...
Regards,
Robert MartyHonorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [4]
https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [5]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'robert.mart...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
[5] https://martyrobert.academia.edu/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
