Dear Steven, No, your observation is not redundant, and it is very much to the point. Familiarity may generate trust, which in turn facilitates discussion. Also, if your discussion partners are restricted to those who share your assumptions and your interests, you can probe more deeply into narrowly defined problems, without being distracted by irrelevancies. So, there is a natural tendency towards the formation of intellectual circles of like-minded thinkers, who end up talking only to each other. I cannot speak to the extent to which this is true in the sciences, but I am certainly familiar with this phenomenon in philosophy. Drawing on Peirce's account of inquiry, Joe is reminding us that the expected effect of this tendency is a progressive narrowing of the pool of discussants in any given research area, and a consequent loss of efficiency and effectiveness in the process of inquiry. Though Joe does not make this explicit, it seems to me that what he is describing is what Imre Lakatos called "degenerative research programmes", where the participants end up discussing only problems arising within the research programme itself. BTW, while Lakatos presented his ideas as a further development of Karl Popper's ideas, I have long thought that Lakatos is better understood as supplementing and improving on the work of Thomas Kuhn: Whereas Kuhn gives a detailed description of how a scientific revolution unfolds, Lakatos provides the account, missing in Kuhn, of why there is a need for a revolution in the first place.
Now, I tend to agree with you that it is unrealistic to expect any fundamental change in academic standard operating procedures anytime soon. Joe certainly thought of the internet as a promising engine of change, which also seems reasonable to me, although I am not sure how sanguine he was about how much could be accomplished how soon. I would be interested in hearing other perspectives on this. But Joe's advocacy for the institutionalization of a Peircean inquiry model was of course ambitious, which I personally think is all to the good, irrespective of how realistic those ambitions may or may not be. But I do not think we are in any disagreement over any of this. Enough for now. Peter ________________________________________ From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 9:10 PM To: Skagestad, Peter; [email protected] Subject: Re: [peirce-l] SLOW READ: THE RELEVANCE OF PEIRCEAN SEMIOTIC TO COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUGMENTATION Dear Peter, Maybe I missed this in earlier comments, so forgive me if the observation is redundant. As you suggest below, in several hard science disciplines it is a common practice only to invite papers from known peers and their students, often drawn from a relatively closed community. Within their focus such groups can be very effective since they ignore extraneous challenges and minimize unproductive disruption. Papers that come from outside this community face difficulty. The simple reason is that familiarity is trust. At times individuals with a common secondary agenda, often lifestyle or religious but not always, select a collection of individuals that share this agenda for "peer review." For example, creationists that put together conferences on Darwin. Interested outsiders that complain about these issues are often marginalized. This is not the case generally if it is plain that the outsider brings their own authority, i.e.. it is plain that they are on the same page and have an affirming contribution to offer. Again, familiarity is trust and the social mechanisms that overcome this are those established by convention; association with a degree and/or institution of repute. I think we have to recognize that this natural social dynamics at work. Peirce is advocating a social ideal. One that requires the intellectual community to rescind habits of institutionalization and in the first case above should, perhaps, be allowed in the cause of progress (while recalling its ill effect as characterized in Smolin's "Trouble with Physics"). It seems that "coordination of the perspectives of the individual inquirers, which assumes an equal respect" is a little "hippy" of Peirce, rather like arguing in favor of "world peace." It's a noble advocacy, we all want it and the advocacy must continue, but no one expects things to change anytime soon or for the desired result to ultimately be possible, for reasons that Peirceans, familiar with Peirce's ideas of habit, should understand well. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering http://iase.info On Jan 29, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Skagestad, Peter wrote: > List, > > I am a little surprised at the lack of follow-up from the list to Steve's > suggestions, below. I do not personally have any opinion regarding the > prospect of Peirceans forming a new generation of public intellectuals, but > this is a theme that I recall being raised on the list in the past, and > generating lively discussion. > > Anyhow, this slow read has gone on somewhat longer than intended or expected, > and it is clear that the focus of discussion on the list has moved beyond it, > which is fine. I shall attempt to wrap it up with a fairly quick overview of > the last few pages of Joe’s paper. A peer is someone who is to be treated as > an equal, and who is to be respected both because s/he is an equal and > because s/he has a perspective that is different from mine and therefore of > value to me as an inquirer. Joe specifically grounds this conception in > Peirce’s work, as follows: > > JR: “Peirce describes the coordination of the perspectives of the individual > inquirers, which assumes an equal respect for each such perspective as having > its own role to play in providing the composite substance of the date being > reconciled in the coordination in a striking passage in “How to Make Our > Ideas Clear”: > > [Quoting Peirce] One man may investigate the velocity of light by studying > the transit of Venus and the aberration of the stars; another by the > oppositions of Mars and the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites; a third by the > method of Fizeau; a fourth by that of Foucault; a fifth by the motions of the > curves of Lissajoux; a sixth, a seventh, an eighth, and a ninth, may follow > the different method of comparing the measures of statical and dynamical > electricity. They may at first obtain different results, but, as each > perfects his method and his processes, the results are found to move steadily > together toward a destined center. So with all scientific research. Different > minds may set out with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of > investigation carries them by a force outside themselves to one and the same > conclusion. (Collected Papers, 5.407)” > > PS: I take Joe here to be – correctly – inferring from Peirce that the larger > and, more importantly, the more diverse the pool of inquirers is, the greater > confidence we can have that any consensus they reach is one to which they > have been carried “by a force outside themselves”. What is of the very > essence of scientific research, then, is undermined by the formation of > scientific elites which decide who does or does not qualify as a peer and > allowed to participate in peer review of scientific communications: > > JR: “When only some members of a research community are actually treated as > having a right to provide input into the theoretical reconciliation that is > constantly being constructed in the ongoing course of inquiry, the community > of inquirers shrinks, in effect, to the size of those so privileged, and the > properties of the subject-matter that are effectively being accessed and > taken duly into account for purposes of arriving at an understanding of the > subject-matter are correspondingly diminished …” > > PS: Peer review through editorial selection of reviewers, then, is really > pseudo-peer review, in contrast to Ginsparg’s system, which comes closer to > realizing peer review in the proper sense of the term. Joe goes on to > emphasize that what he is criticizing is the existing system; he does not > mean to impugn editors functioning within the system, who need have no > elitist intent and who may in fact exercise excellent judgment in their > selection of reviewers. But what is elitist, authoritarian, and limiting is > the very system whereby reviewers are selected by editors, who are of course > themselves selected by people in positions of authority: > > JR: “There is no doubt but what many editors do in fact have good judgment, > and that their selection of reviewers can be counted on to be reasonably > just. But inasmuch as the opinion of the reviewers is actually operative in > publication process only via the confidence the editor places in them, and it > is the editor who selects them to begin with, there is no getting around the > fact that this is an elitist system in which the editors, who must themselves > be peers of the readers of their journals, are functioning as Orwellian > peers, peers more perish than the peers whom they nominally serve.” > > PS: The adjective “Orwellian” here is of course a reference to Animal Farm, > George Orwell’s satire of Soviet communism, where “all animals are equal, but > some animals are more equal than others”. Joe goes on for three more pages > enlarging on the themes covered above, but I think all the main points have > been covered, so I shall stop here. Again, I wish had some probing, > provocative questions to put out there, but I don’t. The floor is open to > questions, comments, objections, amplifications, etc. > > Cheers, > > Peter > > > From: Stephen C. Rose [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 11:57 AM > To: Skagestad, Peter > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [peirce-l] SLOW READ: THE RELEVANCE OF PEIRCEAN SEMIOTIC TO > COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUGMENTATION > > Thanks Peter. You have answered the question I think. But I feel comments on > this ending part might be useful: > > > The impression I have is that Peirce might be quite iconoclastic regarding > > the vetting all of claims to truth, not to mention the proliferation of > > specialization and its sequestration under the umbrellas of academia and > > professions. > > If the answer to this is yes, I feel it is the job of Peirceans to define a > way ahead beyond the current straitjacket. My efforts are entirely beyond it. > because I claim no expertise and only (perhaps) an intuitive and imperfect > understanding. But theologically and generally, I think Peirce is absolutely > essential to explaining a way beyond nominalism and to opening the door to > the appropriation of religion as post-institutional spirituality. Also to the > introduction of a general appropriation of ethical values generally in a > world where the Aristotelian framework of values (which Aristotle actually > did not possess, opting instead for characteristics such as "honor") has > proved seriously wanting. Maybe academic Peirce folk could fill the void in > the ranks of our public intellectuals. > > ShortFormContent at Blogger > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Skagestad, Peter <[email protected]> > wrote: > Steve, list, > > I am not aware that Peirce said anything explicitly about peer review, > although he certainly said things that are relevant to it - more of that when > we move on to the next segment of Joe's paper. But of course academic > disdciplines barely existed in Peirce's day, and they certainly were not > institutionalized the way they are today. Thus Perirce could hold a degree in > chemistry, spernd most of his professional life as astronomer, while taking > time out to teach logic at Johns Hopkins, a combination that is hardly > imaginable today. > > Does anyone else have any light to shed on Steve's question? > > Cheers, > Peter > ________________________________________ > From: Stephen C. Rose [[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 5:19 PM > To: Skagestad, Peter > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [peirce-l] SLOW READ: THE RELEVANCE OF PEIRCEAN SEMIOTIC TO > COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AUGMENTATION > > Did Peirce ever say anything relevant to the issue of peer review? As for > example implying a division between disciplines, in which ordinary persons > would have no relevant contribution to make, and areas where anyone of > ordinary capacities might be seen to have a valuable contribution to make? > The impression I have is that Peirce might be quite iconoclastic regarding > the vetting all of claims to truth, not to mention the proliferation of > specialization and its sequestration under the umbrellas of academia and > professions. > > ShortFormContent at Blogger<http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/> > > > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Skagestad, Peter > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > List, > > After a bit of a hiatus I am returning to the slow read of Joe’s paper. I > said earlier that, while I count myself quite knowledgeable about the topics > covered in the first part of the paper, I know next to nothing about > contemporary scientific communication, which is the focus at least of the > second half. It has occurred to me, however, that in the interest of full > disclosure I should mention that I am currently in my third career as a > textbook editor, meaning that I routinely commission and interpret reviews of > manuscripts. These reviews are no doubt very different from prepublication > reviews of scientific papers – my manuscripts are reviewed less for truth > claims than for coverage, organization, accessibility, and the like – but the > listers should be aware that this is what I do for a living. > > We resume on page 19 of the version posted at Arisbe. Having described > Ginsparg’s publication system (arXiv), Joe counters the criticism that the > system lacks peer review, not by questioning the fundamental importance of > peer review to scientific communication, but by challenging the concept of > peer review as currently understood, i.e. prepublication review by > editorially selected reviewers: > > JR: [my] view is … that what has come to be called “peer review” is not peer > review proper but rather a crippled form of it which is not only of limited > value at best as a critical control principle but is also a subversion of the > peer principle that underlies the practice of authentic peer review. Why? > Because it treats peer review as a system of elite control, which is directly > contrary to the conception of a peer.” > > PS: Initially, Joe notes, he thought this use of the term “peer review” to > refer to review by editorially selected reviewers was a purely verbal matter, > which was best left undisturbed, especially as both defenders and opponents > of the practice shared the same usage. But this, he had later come to see, > was a mistake. By accepting the conventional usage of “peer review” and by > rejecting peer review so understood, the advocates of the Ginsparg system > were in effect undermining the radical potential of the system and > contributing go rendering it innocuous: > > JR: “[Since] it is respect for the peer principle that lies at the basis of > the critical control of research communication generally, [the rejection of > peer review] was a rhetorical mistake that has enable the success of those > who deny the significance of the success of the Ginsparg system by denying > that it has the status which it actually does have as a venue for primary > publication. With this status denied, what actually takes place in the > Ginsparg system can be and now commonly is in fact dismissed as being no > different in kind from what happens on any bulletin board, listserver based > forum or discussion group, chat line, or any other informal medium not > regarded as important enough to the hegemony of legitimacy claimed by the > editorially controlled journal to be a challenge to it.” > > PS: So, Ginsparg’s system, in Joe’s view, differs substantially from informal > online discussion groups by incorporating its form of peer review, > facilitated by the use of abstracts, which enables it to play the role > previously played by scientific journals, while at the same time its > egalitarianism poses a serious challenge to the elitism of the scientific > establishment. This challenge, however, has been blunted by the failure of > both the system’s advocates and the defenders of the status quo to recognize > the role of peer review in the system and the consequent failure of both > sides to distinguish the Ginsparg system from informal forums which pose no > threat to the status quo. What is needed, in Joe’s view, is a new > understanding of “peer review”, starting with a new understanding of the term > “peer”: > > JR: “A research peer … is a presumptive equal, not someone who has been > demonstrated to be de facto equal in this or that respect but rather someone > who is regarded, presumptively, as someone whose informed opinion about the > subject-matter of research is to be taken as seriously as one’s own opinion > is insofar as that depends on the status of the researcher, as distinct from > its dependence on the justification provided by the researcher for the claim. > A peer is someone whose disagreement with one’s own view requires to be > explained … a non-peer is someone whose opinion about the matter in question > makes no difference to you…” > > PS: I pause here to note that Joe is here defining “peer” in terms of how a > person is to be treated; your peer is a person you regard in a particular way > and treat in a particular way. Joe not going to go into the question of how a > person comes to qualify as your peer, not because the question is not > important, but because it is too big a question to do it justice in this > context. Joe goes on to define “peer review” as follows: > > JR: ”Peer review proper, then, is what occurs in the inquiry process when one > makes … a research claim and the research community addressed responds > according to the communicational norms that then obtain. All communication > that occurs within this normatively constituted dialogical space hat pertains > to the claim at issue is peer review.” > > PS: There is much more to come, but I shall stop here, both to catch my > breath and to give listers the opportunity to chime in with any comments or > questions that occur to you. As there has been very limited list > participation so far, I want to emphasize that of course a slow read is a > recreational activity rather than a professional duty. No one should feel > any obligation to contribute; I am simply offering the opportunity to do so. > I plan to resume in a few days. > > Cheers, > Peter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L > listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message > [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
