John, List: JFS: First, let me dismiss a false claim: "appeal to authority is a logical *fallacy*". Whenever Jon, Gary, or anyone else quotes an entry in a dictionary or an encyclopedia, they are making an appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when "the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). Quoting a dictionary or encyclopedia--including Wikipedia, as in this case--is *not *a fallacious appeal to authority because such references contain *facts *on which there is broad consensus, not *opinions *whose persuasiveness depends primarily on the eminence and purported expertise of a particular person who holds them. JFS: The requirement to cite references in an academic publication shows that authors are *required *to show the experts whose authority they depend on for their own claims. That is not my understanding of why scrupulously citing references is required by academic publications these days, unlike in Peirce's time. Instead, it is primarily to give credit where it is due for ideas that are not the author's. JFS: In fact, when Peirce scholars quote Peirce, they are appealing to him as an authority. Quoting Peirce to support scholarly claims about *his own views* is also not a fallacious appeal to authority. On the contrary, as I have said before, his is the *only *authority that matters in such a context. As someone once said, "Anything other than an exact quotation is the opinion of the author. Nobody can claim that his or her ideas are what Peirce intended" (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00085.html). JFS: The English words 'tone', 'tinge', 'tuone', and 'potisign' are *terms *in exactly the same way that the word 'mark' is a *term*. Obviously, all these English words *are *terms--no one is disputing that. The issue here is whether they *signify *a certain kind of term. As defined by Peirce in Baldwin's dictionary, that is *precisely *what "mark" signifies; but as defined by Peirce in the various passages that I have repeatedly cited and quoted, that is *not at all* what "tone," "tuone," "tinge," and "potisign" signify. JFS: Please note that Jon keeps accusing me of making a mistake. I am just pointing out that he is making a mistake by claiming that i am making a mistake. I have not accused anyone of anything, nor have I claimed that anyone is making a mistake. I have simply spelled out *Peirce's *relevant views, as amply supported by exact quotations. Besides, as someone once said, "we should all remember that Peirce List is a collaboration, not a competition. If somebody corrects one of our mistakes, we should thank them for the correction" (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-02/msg00089.html)--not treat it as an accusation. JFS: If I agree with other Peirce scholars that 'mark' is a better word, I have a right to do so without being criticized for doing so. I have not criticized anyone for believing that "mark" is a better choice than "tone" for the possible counterpart of existent "token" and necessitant "type," even though I strongly disagree. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated more than once that anyone is welcome to hold that opinion and make a case for it. Nevertheless, as I have also stated more than once, no one can accurately claim that it was *Peirce's *final and definitive choice. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 5:15 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Gary, List, > > First, let me dismiss a false claim: "appeal to authority is a logical > *fallacy".* > > Whenever Jon, Gary, or anyone else quotes an entry in a dictionary or an > encyclopedia, they are making an appeal to authority. The requirement to > cite references in an academic publication shows that authors are > *required *to show the experts whose authority they depend on for their > own claims. In fact , when Peirce scholars quote Peirce, they are > appealing to him as an authority. Of course, everybody is fallible, even > authorities. But rejection of an authority requires some evidence. > > Note the first sentence of Peirce's definition of 'mark' (as quoted > below): "To say that a term or thing has a mark is to say that of whatever > it can be predicated something else (the mark) can be predicated; and to > say that two terms or things have the same mark is simply to say that one > term (the mark) can be predicated of whatever either of these terms or > things can be predicated". > > The English words 'tone', 'tinge', 'tuone', and 'potisign' are *terms *in > exactly the same way that the word 'mark' is a *term*. Whatever those > terms may be predicated of, something else (a mark) can be predicated. > Therefore, the word 'mark' may be used in the same way as the words 'tone' > or 'potisign' to refer to a possible mark. > > In conclusion, the word 'mark' may be used to refer to a possible mark. > In fact, it's the simplest and most obvious word for the purpose. In 1908, > Peirce recognized that point. Whether or not he vacillated on that point > is irrelevant. He did not deny that it may be so used, and many or perhaps > most speakers of 21st C English find it more natural and more memorable. > That is sufficient justification for preferring it. > > JFS: All I'm saying is that there is no reason to continue discussing this > issue. > > JAS: Then why keep posting about it? > > Because I believe that it's important to avoid confusing the subscribers > to Peirce list. I will stop correcting your mistakes as soon as you stop > sending them to the list. > > Remark to Gary: Please note that Jon keeps accusing me of making a > mistake. I am just pointing out that he is making a mistake by claiming > that i am making a mistake. If he wants to continue using the word 'tone', > he has a right to do so. If I agree with other Peirce scholars that 'mark' > is a better word, I have a right to do so without being criticized for > doing so. > > John >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
