Sally, i’d just like to say thanks for your leadership in the slow read of this
paper – your probing questions and your introduction of other perspectives
revealed aspects of its meaning that i wouldn’t otherwise have noticed.
On JR’s recommendation against “debate”, my guess at his point is that debate
is not a mode of inquiry or communication at all, but rather a competitive game
or power struggle, a parody of genuine argument. The spirit of debate is
therefore alien to the life of science, which JR characterizes as an
“idealistic” quest for truth -- definitely a Peircean view of science. As for
Peirce’s use of the term “debate”, i did come across one passage seems to
reflect the view i’m attributing to JR – CP 2.635 (1878):
[[[ Some persons fancy that bias and counter-bias are favorable to the
extraction of truth—that hot and partisan debate is the way to investigate.
This is the theory of our atrocious legal procedure. But Logic puts its heel
upon this suggestion. It irrefragably demonstrates that knowledge can only be
furthered by the real desire for it, and that the methods of obstinacy, of
authority, and every mode of trying to reach a foregone conclusion, are
absolutely of no value. ]]]
Gary F.
} Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them
all yourself. [Eleanor Roosevelt] {
www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce
From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Sally Ness
Sent: September-29-11 8:37 PM
...
* JR recommends not to debate the topic of "what is true" with academic
politicians (paragraph 24). He justifies this by identifying debate as a
political rather than a logical mode of discourse and, so, of no value ("one
wins nothing"). This refusal to engage will short circuit the attempted
interruptions of the interlopers.
* JR recommends to focus communications on what science, in truth, is "all
about"--what keeps the tradition of inquiry "healthy" as a form of life in the
long-run. This kind of communication, JR argues, will be attractive to
non-scientists, as it will lay out what is inherently admirable in scientific
life, its "adventurous and chance-taking spirit" and its "commitment to turning
failure to success by treating mistakes as opportunities to correct one's
course rather than as signs of defeat or incompetence." (paragraph 25)
Before returning to the question above, I can't help but say that JR's idea
that debate--of any kind--could be illogical seems hard to fathom. His
recommendation that scientists refuse to communicate with academic politicians
on the topic of truth as it relates to science, is even harder to swallow
(swallowing in the spirit of Peirce here). How can such a refusal be
considered a sincere, logical response worthy of a scientist? The
recommendation seems to exaggerate the differences between the scientific and
the political modes of life, dissociating them to a degree that is
dehumanizing. It also seems to discount the possibility that scientists could
actually win such a debate and that their victory, if they did so, would have
any meaningful consequences at all for their community as well as the political
community involved. Wouldn't a Peircean outlook see more potential for
communication here? Wouldn't it be more likely to place scientific and
political forms of communication, logic, debate, and life in relation to one
another and to situate them along a spectrum of human experience, rather than
to dissociate them in such a radical way? In sum, I am having trouble imagining
Peirce recommending this course of action, let alone following it himself.
Peirce wasn't one to refrain from engaging in debate of any kind, with scholars
or with politicians, academic or otherwise, whether or not the topic was
initially framed in accordance with his views. Perhaps listers can supply some
evidence in support of the Peircean spirit of JR's first recommendation--I'm
drawing a blank.
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
