Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

[Jerry Rhee]

Ben, list:



You said:

*it's pretty hopeless to confine one's attention to such things. Part of
Arnold's point seems to be that we can't so confine our attention, since
social institutions themselves already are social inquiry processes.*



Nietzsche said:

*Essential to begin with the body and use it as a guiding thread.  It is
the much richer phenomenon and affords clearer observation.*



So, for what reason *C*, the phenomenon that is observed, if not to focus
attention; thread observation?


Plato said:

*If you wish to learn what I mean, take these in the case of one instance,
and so understand them in the case of all.*



Best,

Jerry R

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Gary, list,
> what I am confused about, is, that on one hand Shepperson says, that
> statistics are not helpful, but on the other hand he sticks with the term
> "...numerable". Might it not be better, to first inquire about the nature
> of humans, how humans have reacted in certain situations in history, and
> how societies have changed due to changing circumstances? Historical
> evolution and statistics are two different and mostly independent
> parameters, because in history there mostly was no democracy. When a king
> tried to break the jurisdictions of the town and village communities to
> replace them with his laws and institutions, it might have been, that only
> 3 percent of the population agreed, the rest objected, but although the
> king achieved what he wanted, because he had armoured knights, and the
> peasants didnt. I also doubt, that even in so-called democratic nations
> there is democracy: Power is not established only with arms now, but mostly
> with money, and one has to be able to afford a lawyer first, before being
> able to effectively argue for his/her right. So mixing statistical numbers
> with human nature from the start is not only confusing, but perhaps also
> falsely suggesting, that there is an all-effective democracy existing,
> which combines these two parameters. Which is not the case. So I think,
> that in sociology and anthropology inductions about human nature, and
> statistical inductions, can only be two different and separate ways of
> inquiry. Only at the end they may be compared just to estimate how
> democratic the society has been, in which the evolution has taken place. I
> recommend the book "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin, who has lived about the
> same time like Peirce.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>
>  01. Oktober 2016 um 20:05 Uhr
>  "Gary Richmond" 
>
> Ben, Jon, list,
>
> The discussion today got me thinking again about Arnold Shepperson's work.
> Shepperson who died prematurely and so was not able to fully develop let
> alone complete his work, was perhaps South Africa's best known (he'd have
> said, "only") Peirce scholar. In a special edition of the S.A. journal, 
> *Critical
> Arts*, I wrote an article, "Cultural Pragmatism and the *Life of the
> Sign,*" outlining an important principle of his approach to inquiry.
>
>
> In consideration of inquiry requiring the sampling of a population,
> Shepperson argued that, for example, in his own field, JMC (journalism,
> media, and communication studies) that inquiry employed hypotheses
> involving not only denumerable and enumerable collections (see below), but
> even more so, that it *ought *consider what Peirce termed "abnumerable
> collections," that is collections of *potential populations, *changing
> populations tending towards the future. Here's a short excerpt from my
> article which focuses on this principle.
>
>
>
> Shepperson argued strongly that the kind of sampling appropriate to most
> JMC inquiry  is a little understood variety *not* relying on statistical
> probabilities. This alternative approach is necessary because “the persons,
> collections and institutions that make up the social realm do not
> constitute a collection that can be validly sampled statistically.”
>
>
>
> In this model JMC inquiry is not essentially concerned with collections
> whose members can be *presently counted* (e.g., a census), nor even those
> which form a *partial ordering* (e.g., the generations of a given
> society). Rather, he holds that, as JMC concerns itself with ever-changing
> populations tending towards the future, it ought sample *potential* 
> populations,
> what Peirce called *abnumerable collections* (as opposed to the
> denumerable and enumerable collections just mentioned parenthetically
> above). Shepperson noted that since the very subject matter of JMC studies,
> the social realm, is itself an abnumerable collection, statistical sampling
> could result in distortions, kinds of ‘freezing’ of the characters of what
> are essentially ever-changing, perhaps evolving populations.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, potential collections involve what Peirce refers to as
> *would-bes*, or that which would occur if certain conditions were brought
> about (for example, if all young people 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

[Helmut Raulien]

Gary, list,

what I am confused about, is, that on one hand Shepperson says, that statistics are not helpful, but on the other hand he sticks with the term "...numerable". Might it not be better, to first inquire about the nature of humans, how humans have reacted in certain situations in history, and how societies have changed due to changing circumstances? Historical evolution and statistics are two different and mostly independent parameters, because in history there mostly was no democracy. When a king tried to break the jurisdictions of the town and village communities to replace them with his laws and institutions, it might have been, that only 3 percent of the population agreed, the rest objected, but although the king achieved what he wanted, because he had armoured knights, and the peasants didnt. I also doubt, that even in so-called democratic nations there is democracy: Power is not established only with arms now, but mostly with money, and one has to be able to afford a lawyer first, before being able to effectively argue for his/her right. So mixing statistical numbers with human nature from the start is not only confusing, but perhaps also falsely suggesting, that there is an all-effective democracy existing, which combines these two parameters. Which is not the case. So I think, that in sociology and anthropology inductions about human nature, and statistical inductions, can only be two different and separate ways of inquiry. Only at the end they may be compared just to estimate how democratic the society has been, in which the evolution has taken place. I recommend the book "Mutual Aid" by Peter Kropotkin, who has lived about the same time like Peirce.

Best,

Helmut

 

 

 01. Oktober 2016 um 20:05 Uhr
 "Gary Richmond" 
 




Ben, Jon, list,

 

The discussion today got me thinking again about Arnold Shepperson's work. Shepperson who died prematurely and so was not able to fully develop let alone complete his work, was perhaps South Africa's best known (he'd have said, "only") Peirce scholar. In a special edition of the S.A. journal, Critical Arts, I wrote an article, "Cultural Pragmatism and the Life of the Sign," outlining an important principle of his approach to inquiry. 

 



In consideration of inquiry requiring the sampling of a population, Shepperson argued that, for example, in his own field, JMC (journalism, media, and communication studies) that inquiry employed hypotheses involving not only denumerable and enumerable collections (see below), but even more so, that it ought consider what Peirce termed "abnumerable collections," that is collections of potential populations, changing populations tending towards the future. Here's a short excerpt from my article which focuses on this principle.



 



Shepperson argued strongly that the kind of sampling appropriate to most JMC inquiry  is a little understood variety not relying on statistical probabilities. This alternative approach is necessary because “the persons, collections and institutions that make up the social realm do not constitute a collection that can be validly sampled statistically.” 



 



In this model JMC inquiry is not essentially concerned with collections whose members can be presently counted (e.g., a census), nor even those which form a partial ordering (e.g., the generations of a given society). Rather, he holds that, as JMC concerns itself with ever-changing populations tending towards the future, it ought sample potential populations, what Peirce called abnumerable collections (as opposed to the denumerable and enumerable collections just mentioned parenthetically above). Shepperson noted that since the very subject matter of JMC studies, the social realm, is itself an abnumerable collection, statistical sampling could result in distortions, kinds of ‘freezing’ of the characters of what are essentially ever-changing, perhaps evolving populations. 



 



Furthermore, potential collections involve what Peirce refers to as would-bes, or that which would occur if certain conditions were brought about (for example, if all young people in a given society were provided internet access) and this too relates to the ethics involved in JMC inquiry and practice. This emphasis on potential populations does not deny that in specific contexts and under certain conditions that statistical sampling isn’t desirable in JMC research. But Shepperson’s argument strongly implies that, when considering the social realm, it is not possible to “draw necessary conclusions about the human future.” All researchers can do is to “continually test our hypotheses against experience, correcting as we learn from the errors that this experience reveals.” It was Shepperson’s hope that JMC inquiry could develop exemplary methods and techniques for sampling abnumerable collections so that its findings would tend “over the long run to approximate to true assertions about social and human reality.”



 

Any 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

[Benjamin Udell]

Gary R., Jon S., John C., list,

Consideration of potential populations (abnumerable collections) 
involving "would-be's" might inform sociology, anthropology, etc., by 
focusing attention on aspects of their subject matter that are real yet 
difficult to draw inductive conclusions about. I've just re-read parts 
of Shepperson's paper that discusses it; he goes to some trouble to 
discuss the limitations as well as the possible gains of such induction. 
Researchers like to find illuminating simple relationships that hold up 
despite complexity and change; but it's pretty hopeless to confine one's 
attention to such things. Part of Arnold's point seems to be that we 
can't so confine our attention, since social institutions themselves 
already are social inquiry processes.


Links:

Your paper on Shepperson: "Cultural Pragmatism and the /Life of the Sign/"
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/shepperson.pdf

Arnold Shepperson: "Realism, Logic, and Social Communication: C.S. 
Peirce’s classification of science in communications studies and 
journalism." This is not confined to a dry abstract discussion of 
classification; it is pragmatically oriented to applications.

http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/shepperson/jmc-arisbe.htm

Shepperson-related links:
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/newbooks.htm#shepperson_tomaselli

You wrote that Arnold "was perhaps South Africa's best known (he'd have 
said, "only") Peirce scholar"


One might say that Arnold was South Africa's only or best-known 
_/home-grown/_ Peirce scholar, since John Collier has lived there for 
years (John is originally from Canada and has lived in another country 
or two as well, if I recall correctly). John also helped supervise a 
thesis of Arnold's, or something like that (there my memory is fuzzy).


Best, Ben

On 10/1/2016 2:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:


Ben, Jon, list,

The discussion today got me thinking again about Arnold Shepperson's 
work. Shepperson who died prematurely and so was not able to fully 
develop let alone complete his work, was perhaps South Africa's best 
known (he'd have said, "only") Peirce scholar. In a special edition of 
the S.A. journal, /Critical Arts/ , I wrote an article, "Cultural 
Pragmatism and the /Life of the Sign,/ " outlining an important 
principle of his approach to inquiry.


In consideration of inquiry requiring the sampling of a population, 
Shepperson argued that, for example, in his own field, JMC 
(journalism, media, and communication studies) that inquiry employed 
hypotheses involving not only denumerable and enumerable collections 
(see below), but even more so, that it /ought/ consider what Peirce 
termed "abnumerable collections," that is collections of /potential 
populations,/ changing populations tending towards the future. Here's 
a short excerpt from my article which focuses on this principle.


Shepperson argued strongly that the kind of sampling appropriate
to most JMC inquiry  is a little understood variety /not/ relying
on statistical probabilities. This alternative approach is
necessary because “the persons, collections and institutions that
make up the social realm do not constitute a collection that can
be validly sampled statistically.”

In this model JMC inquiry is not essentially concerned with
collections whose members can be /presently counted/ (e.g., a
census), nor even those which form a /partial ordering/ (e.g., the
generations of a given society). Rather, he holds that, as JMC
concerns itself with ever-changing populations tending towards the
future, it ought sample /potential/ populations, what Peirce
called /abnumerable collections/ (as opposed to the denumerable
and enumerable collections just mentioned parenthetically above).
Shepperson noted that since the very subject matter of JMC
studies, the social realm, is itself an abnumerable collection,
statistical sampling could result in distortions, kinds of
‘freezing’ of the characters of what are essentially
ever-changing, perhaps evolving populations.

Furthermore, potential collections involve what Peirce refers to
as /would-bes/ , or that which would occur if certain conditions
were brought about (for example, if all young people in a given
society were provided internet access) and this too relates to the
ethics involved in JMC inquiry and practice. This emphasis on
potential populations does not deny that in specific contexts and
under certain conditions that statistical sampling isn’t desirable
in JMC research. But Shepperson’s argument strongly implies that,
when considering the social realm, it is not possible to “draw
necessary conclusions about the human future.” All researchers can
do is to “continually test our hypotheses against experience,
correcting as we learn from the errors that this experience
reveals.” It was Shepperson’s hope that JMC