Jon, To begin, I'll quote a highly respected authority about arguments from authority. The following passage about authority comes from Wikiquote, a source that is widely considered an authoritative source of information:
"Appeal to an authority which depends on human reason is the weakest kind of proof. - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica ...when we engage in argument we must look to the weight of reason rather than authority. Indeed, students who are keen to learn often find the authority of those who claim to be teachers to be an obstacle, for they cease to apply their own judgement and regard as definitive the solution offered by the mentor of whom they approve. I myself tend to disapprove of the alleged practice of the Pythagoreans: the story goes that if they were maintaining some position in argument, and were asked why, they would reply: "The master said so", the master being Pythagoras. Prior judgement exercised such sway that authority prevailed even when unsupported by reason." My argument for the word 'mark' as a better choice than 'tone' is based on my own reasoning long before I noticed that Tony Jappy had made the same choice. And in the discussions, I supported every point with my own reasons. However, I realized that some readers, such as you, might disagree. So I said that if you don't believe me, go to another Peirce scholar who has spent years of research on these issues. That is the kind of citation that is REQUIRED in peer-reviewed publications in every field. The author is expected to cite related research. Instead of criticizing me, you should thank me for providing that additional information. JAS: 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. I suggest that you read (or reread) some of the articles in the Summa Theologiae by Aquinas. In every article, he cites what other scholars have written pro and con each of the statements he is trying to prove. He then explains the arguments he agrees with and refutes the ones he disagrees with. The methods of citation by Aquinas established the polices for scholarly writing for universities for the next 800 years. At the top, I quoted Aquinas. I suggest that you read (or reread) a few of his articles. My citations of Jappy's writings are the same kind of references that Aquinas used to cite authors who supported the points he was trying to prove. And by the way, Peirce had also read quite a bit of the writings by Aquinas (in Latin, of course). In fact, the commentary about Aristotle by Aquinas is still regarded as a good introduction today. In fact, Hilary Putnam recommended it. Those recommendations are very respectable. They're the kind of references I made to Jappy. Anybody who criticizes that as a fallacy deserves a huge amount of criticism. John ---------------------------------------- From: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: 4/11/24 10:28 PM 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 <s...@bestweb.net> 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 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.
