Gary, Jon, and List,
Thank you for your generous acknowledgment, Gary. Regarding your
comments on debate and Jon's as well, yes, it occurred to me after I
posted that JR's remarks concerning debate would have referenced this
political form of debate, not scholarly debate, and Peirce certainly
does make a very strong distinction between the two. This "legal
procedure" in the quote cited would also be "sham-reasoning" in that
the conclusion is foregone. Thank you for bringing this out.
It has been a most rewarding experience for me, em-ceeing this paper.
However, I am delighted, now, to have the honor to pass the baton to
Nathan Houser. It's all yours, Professor Houser.
Sally
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] {
<http://www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm>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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
