date:20170313

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

Jon S.

I was not aware of this text.
Perhaps it is the source of Val's comment.
Perhaps he will chime in and reveal his opinion.

Cheers Jerry 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jon A, Val Daniel, Jon S, John S, List,
> 
> Let me ask a couple of questions about your experiences engaging with others 
> in collaborative inquiry using online tools including Wikipedia, blogs and 
> the Peirce-List. If others have suggestions based on their own experiences, 
> please feel free to chime in.
> 
> As you know, I'm working with a group that has been developing a pair of 
> related collaborative research projects. Our aims are twofold:  first, we are 
> trying to bring a network of Peirce scholars and interested laypeople 
> together for the purpose of transcribing and interpreting Peirce's 
> unpublished manuscripts in the SPIN project; second, we are trying to bring 
> the network of Peirce scholars together with scientists who draw on the 
> philosophical and logical ideas Peirce was developing in order to promote and 
> support cutting edge collaborative research in a broad range of areas 
> including biosemiotics, cognitive science and computer science in the APERI 
> project. Both projects are meant to be open to all and democratic in spirit. 
> We've created draft versions of two web pages to help publicize these efforts:
> 
> 1. SPIN project: https://sites.google.com/site/spinpeirce/
> 2. APERI project:  https://sites.google.com/site/abductivepathways/
> 
> For the last year and a half, we have been selecting a suite of existing 
> online tools, and then we've been additional functionality when needed (e.g., 
> by adding LaTeX capabilities to the FromThePage transcription platform for 
> the sake of encoding mathematical and logical formulas and diagrams). See:  
> http://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16
> 
> Considerable time has been spent developing a framework for the project, we 
> have been active in asking for letters of commitment from Peirce scholars and 
> scientists to show funding agencies that we have buy-in from a number of 
> people willing to engage, and we've spent more hours than I would care to 
> admit applying to public and private grant agencies for the sake of securing 
> the funding that is needed to support the project for the next several years.
> 
> Given the dreams Jon A has dreamed about building a true community of 
> learning and inquiry using online resource, and given what you and others 
> have learned--both good and bad--by engaging with Wikipedia, online blogs and 
> the like, do you have suggestions to offer about the following questions:
> 
> a. What does and doesn't work in the context of Wikipedia for the sake of 
> building what you consider to be a true community of learning and inquiry?
> b. What suite of resources would you recommend that are currently available 
> to foster the growth of such a community?
> c. We believe that some kind of social publishing/forum discussion tool would 
> be helpful to support collaborative research between people who are 
> physically in different parts of the world, but we haven't found a platform 
> that really suites the needs of the community. Can you suggest one--or 
> suggest features that such a tool should have to promote a true community of 
> learning and inquiry? 
> 
> We intend to use a range of online resources that, taken together, will 
> function something like a "research ecosystem" including: (i) regular 
> discussions between small research teams utilizing video-conferencing with 
> screen sharing; (ii) dialogue mapping of the conversations taking place in 
> video-conferences, by email, text or what you, as a kind of shared community 
> research notebook; (iii) a network blog to keep the SPIN and APERI 
> communities informed about what the different research teams are doing and 
> learning; (iv) a relatively informal online e-journal to publish work in 
> progress (e.g., including such things as an outline or prospectus of a 
> research project that is just getting underway, diagrams that are being used 
> to see questions and frame hypotheses, and pre-prints of drafts of articles 
> that are in the works). What online tools or approaches would you recommend 
> that we use or avoid given the aims of the SPIN and APERI projects?
> 
> I appreciate any suggestions you have to offer.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
> 
> From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:13 PM
> To: E Valentine Daniel
> Cc: Peirce List
> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
> 
> Val, List,
> 
> Proposal accepted!  Actually, I feel like I've been working along
> these lines ever since I first met up with Peirce.  I'm currently
> fighting some emotional resistance -- it makes me a l

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jeffrey Brian Downard

Hi Jon A, Val Daniel, Jon S, John S, List,

Let me ask a couple of questions about your experiences engaging with others in 
collaborative inquiry using online tools including Wikipedia, blogs and the 
Peirce-List. If others have suggestions based on their own experiences, please 
feel free to chime in.

As you know, I'm working with a group that has been developing a pair of 
related collaborative research projects. Our aims are twofold:  first, we are 
trying to bring a network of Peirce scholars and interested laypeople together 
for the purpose of transcribing and interpreting Peirce's unpublished 
manuscripts in the SPIN project; second, we are trying to bring the network of 
Peirce scholars together with scientists who draw on the philosophical and 
logical ideas Peirce was developing in order to promote and support cutting 
edge collaborative research in a broad range of areas including biosemiotics, 
cognitive science and computer science in the APERI project. Both projects are 
meant to be open to all and democratic in spirit. We've created draft versions 
of two web pages to help publicize these efforts:

1. SPIN project: https://sites.google.com/site/spinpeirce/
2. APERI project:  https://sites.google.com/site/abductivepathways/

For the last year and a half, we have been selecting a suite of existing online 
tools, and then we've been additional functionality when needed (e.g., by 
adding LaTeX capabilities to the FromThePage transcription platform for the 
sake of encoding mathematical and logical formulas and diagrams). See:  
http://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16

Considerable time has been spent developing a framework for the project, we 
have been active in asking for letters of commitment from Peirce scholars and 
scientists to show funding agencies that we have buy-in from a number of people 
willing to engage, and we've spent more hours than I would care to admit 
applying to public and private grant agencies for the sake of securing the 
funding that is needed to support the project for the next several years.

Given the dreams Jon A has dreamed about building a true community of learning 
and inquiry using online resource, and given what you and others have 
learned--both good and bad--by engaging with Wikipedia, online blogs and the 
like, do you have suggestions to offer about the following questions:

a. What does and doesn't work in the context of Wikipedia for the sake of 
building what you consider to be a true community of learning and inquiry?
b. What suite of resources would you recommend that are currently available to 
foster the growth of such a community?
c. We believe that some kind of social publishing/forum discussion tool would 
be helpful to support collaborative research between people who are physically 
in different parts of the world, but we haven't found a platform that really 
suites the needs of the community. Can you suggest one--or suggest features 
that such a tool should have to promote a true community of learning and 
inquiry? 

We intend to use a range of online resources that, taken together, will 
function something like a "research ecosystem" including: (i) regular 
discussions between small research teams utilizing video-conferencing with 
screen sharing; (ii) dialogue mapping of the conversations taking place in 
video-conferences, by email, text or what you, as a kind of shared community 
research notebook; (iii) a network blog to keep the SPIN and APERI communities 
informed about what the different research teams are doing and learning; (iv) a 
relatively informal online e-journal to publish work in progress (e.g., 
including such things as an outline or prospectus of a research project that is 
just getting underway, diagrams that are being used to see questions and frame 
hypotheses, and pre-prints of drafts of articles that are in the works). What 
online tools or approaches would you recommend that we use or avoid given the 
aims of the SPIN and APERI projects?

I appreciate any suggestions you have to offer.

Yours,

Jeff

Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354

From: Jon Awbrey [jawb...@att.net]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 12:13 PM
To: E Valentine Daniel
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Val, List,

Proposal accepted!  Actually, I feel like I've been working along
these lines ever since I first met up with Peirce.  I'm currently
fighting some emotional resistance -- it makes me a little sad to
look at those old wiki-scraps -- the dreams we dreamed about what
Wikipedia could be! a true community of learning and inquiry! but
it was neither designed nor destined to become that.  At any rate,
I would begin by poring over the relics I saved and trying to see
what sense we could make of them.  By way of secondary literature,
I remember thinking that Susan Haack's 'Evidence and Inquiry' and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread CLARK GOBLE

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  > wrote:
> 
> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring 
> [Peirce]”
> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a “Procrustian 
> bed
> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to say
> in that regard if I can get to it.

I think so too, but I think we should make explicit what other doctrines Peirce 
held that was different from the mainstream of philosophy lead to these 
differences. Off the top of my head I think you have to mention the following:

  scholastic realism vs. nominalism
  modal realism vs. actualism (primarily for the late Peirce although with the 
 pragmatic maxim he moved to counterfactuals reasonably early)
  externalism vs. internalism
  signs vs. thoughts in a mind (i.e. the interpretant need not be a human mind)
  verification as meaning vs. verification as truth

There’s probably some others but those five see the key differences that make 
terms like correspondence or coherence misleading at best.
-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

List:

As Val and Jon A. were perhaps fully aware, Peirce himself used
"concordance" when discussing truth in his article, "Truth and Falsity and
Error," for Baldwin's 1901 *Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology* (CP
5.565, 568-570).

Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit
towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief,
which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the
confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an
essential ingredient of truth. A further explanation of what this
concordance consists in will be given below ...

To say that a proposition is true is to say that every interpretation of it
is true. Two propositions are equivalent when either might have been an
interpretant of the other ... When we speak of truth and falsity, we refer
to the possibility of the proposition being refuted; and this refutation
(roughly speaking) takes place in but one way. Namely, an interpretant of
the proposition would, if believed, produce the expectation of a certain
description of percept on a certain occasion. The occasion arrives: the
percept forced upon us is different. This constitutes the falsity of every
proposition of which the disappointing prediction was the interpretant.

Thus, a false proposition is a proposition of which some interpretant
represents that, on an occasion which it indicates, a percept will have a
certain character, while the immediate perceptual judgment on that occasion
is that the percept has not that character. A true proposition is a
proposition belief in which would never lead to such disappointment so long
as the proposition is not understood otherwise than it was intended.

All the above relates to *complex truth*, or the truth of propositions.
This is divided into many varieties, among which may be mentioned *ethical
truth*, or the conformity of an assertion to the speaker's or writer's
belief, otherwise called *veracity*, and *logical truth*, that is, the
concordance of a proposition with reality, in such way as is above defined.


Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jerry Rhee

Signs are logical arguments...except when they aren't.  The issue is
whether Signs correspond to real.

The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by *all who
investigate*, is what we mean by the truth,

and the object represented in this opinion is the real.


Best, Jerry



On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Jerry C., List:
>
> Again, Val invoked consensus and correspondence, not coherence and
> correspondence.  Frankly, I am not sure exactly what to make of "truth by
> concordance"; I am hoping that Val and/or Jon A. will elaborate on what
> they meant by that suggestion.  I now see that perhaps you were proposing
> "order" and "index" as two possible synonyms for "concordance."  I took
> them to be invoking it more as "agreement," given the reference to "triple
> correspondence" in a triadic relation; i.e., consistency of the sign,
> object, and interpretant.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
> jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Jon:
>>
>> the phrase:
>>
>> "by adding, Truth by "concordance” "
>>
>> What is your interpretation of this phrase?
>>
>> (Within philosophical writings, the two principle theories of truth are
>> referred to as “coherence” and “correspondence”.  In my view, CSP focused
>> his logic on correspondence between signs and logical arguments.)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jerry C.:  I am a bit puzzled by your questions, since there was no
>> mention of "order," "index," or "inferring" in the preceding posts by Jon
>> A. and Val.  Which three concepts are you seeking to bind together?
>>
>> Val:  Besides consensus and correspondence, you left out the coherence
>> and pragmatic/instrumental theories of truth as espoused by nominalists.
>> Again, I am inclined to agree with Forster that Peirce's realist approach
>> satisfies all of these, rather than reducing truth to only one of them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
>> jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
>>
>>> List:
>>>
>>> I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.
>>>
>>> Concordance?
>>> “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
>>> “Index" as a categorization?
>>>
>>> Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?
>>>
>>> Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
>>> Can anyone expand on this proposal?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Jerry
>>>
>>> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Dear Jon and Peirces,
>>> > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories
>>> of truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by
>>> "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
>>> > val daniel
>>> >
>>> > E. Valentine Daniel
>>> > Professor of Anthropology
>>> > 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
>>> > Columbia University
>>> > New York, 10027
>>> >
>>> > (917) 741-7764
>>> > e...@columbia.edu
>>> >
>>> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Peircers,
>>> >>
>>> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
>>> >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
>>> >> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
>>> >>
>>> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-o
>>> f-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
>>> >>
>>> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by
>>> ignoring [Peirce]”
>>> >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a
>>> “Procrustian bed
>>> >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have
>>> more to say
>>> >> in that regard if I can get to it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Jon
>>> >>
>>> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>> >>> Peircers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
>>> >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
>>> >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
>>> >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
>>> >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
>>> >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
>>> >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
>>> >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
>>> >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
>>> >>> name for a triadic relation.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
>>> >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
>>> >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
>>> >>>
>>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Jerry C., List:

Again, Val invoked consensus and correspondence, not coherence and
correspondence.  Frankly, I am not sure exactly what to make of "truth by
concordance"; I am hoping that Val and/or Jon A. will elaborate on what
they meant by that suggestion.  I now see that perhaps you were proposing
"order" and "index" as two possible synonyms for "concordance."  I took
them to be invoking it more as "agreement," given the reference to "triple
correspondence" in a triadic relation; i.e., consistency of the sign,
object, and interpretant.

Regards,

Jon S.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> Jon:
>
> the phrase:
>
> "by adding, Truth by "concordance” "
>
> What is your interpretation of this phrase?
>
> (Within philosophical writings, the two principle theories of truth are
> referred to as “coherence” and “correspondence”.  In my view, CSP focused
> his logic on correspondence between signs and logical arguments.)
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
> Jerry C.:  I am a bit puzzled by your questions, since there was no
> mention of "order," "index," or "inferring" in the preceding posts by Jon
> A. and Val.  Which three concepts are you seeking to bind together?
>
> Val:  Besides consensus and correspondence, you left out the coherence and
> pragmatic/instrumental theories of truth as espoused by nominalists.
> Again, I am inclined to agree with Forster that Peirce's realist approach
> satisfies all of these, rather than reducing truth to only one of them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
> jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> List:
>>
>> I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.
>>
>> Concordance?
>> “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
>> “Index" as a categorization?
>>
>> Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?
>>
>> Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
>> Can anyone expand on this proposal?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Jon and Peirces,
>> > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories
>> of truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by
>> "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
>> > val daniel
>> >
>> > E. Valentine Daniel
>> > Professor of Anthropology
>> > 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
>> > Columbia University
>> > New York, 10027
>> >
>> > (917) 741-7764
>> > e...@columbia.edu
>> >
>> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peircers,
>> >>
>> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
>> >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
>> >> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
>> >>
>> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-o
>> f-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
>> >>
>> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by
>> ignoring [Peirce]”
>> >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a
>> “Procrustian bed
>> >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more
>> to say
>> >> in that regard if I can get to it.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Jon
>> >>
>> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>> >>> Peircers,
>> >>>
>> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
>> >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
>> >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
>> >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
>> >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
>> >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
>> >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
>> >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
>> >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
>> >>> name for a triadic relation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
>> >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
>> >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
>> >>>
>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_the
>> ory_of_truth
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jon
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
>> >> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
>> >> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
>> >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
>> >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

Jon:

the phrase:

"by adding, Truth by "concordance” "

What is your interpretation of this phrase?

(Within philosophical writings, the two principle theories of truth are 
referred to as “coherence” and “correspondence”.  In my view, CSP focused his 
logic on correspondence between signs and logical arguments.)

Cheers

Jerry
> On Mar 13, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  
> wrote:
> 
> Jerry C.:  I am a bit puzzled by your questions, since there was no mention 
> of "order," "index," or "inferring" in the preceding posts by Jon A. and Val. 
>  Which three concepts are you seeking to bind together?
> 
> Val:  Besides consensus and correspondence, you left out the coherence and 
> pragmatic/instrumental theories of truth as espoused by nominalists.  Again, 
> I am inclined to agree with Forster that Peirce's realist approach satisfies 
> all of these, rather than reducing truth to only one of them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
>  - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler 
> mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote:
> List:
> 
> I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.
> 
> Concordance?
> “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
> “Index" as a categorization?
> 
> Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?
> 
> Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
> Can anyone expand on this proposal?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jerry
> 
> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel  > > wrote:
> >
> > Dear Jon and Peirces,
> > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of 
> > truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by 
> > "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
> > val daniel
> >
> > E. Valentine Daniel
> > Professor of Anthropology
> > 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
> > Columbia University
> > New York, 10027
> >
> > (917) 741-7764 
> > e...@columbia.edu 
> >
> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Peircers,
> >>
> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
> >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
> >> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
> >>
> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
> >>  
> >> 
> >>
> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring 
> >> [Peirce]”
> >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a 
> >> “Procrustian bed
> >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to 
> >> say
> >> in that regard if I can get to it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >>> Peircers,
> >>>
> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
> >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
> >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
> >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
> >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
> >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
> >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
> >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
> >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
> >>> name for a triadic relation.
> >>>
> >>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
> >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
> >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
> >>>
> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ 
> >> 
> >> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey 
> >> 
> >> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey 
> >> 
> >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA 
> >> 
> >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache 
> >> 
> -
> 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 t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jerry Rhee

That the concept of truth requires order, index and inferring is not
obvious to all.



In other words;

that order, index and inferring is contained in truth requires awareness
through collateral experience.



Best,
Jerry R

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Jerry C.:  I am a bit puzzled by your questions, since there was no
> mention of "order," "index," or "inferring" in the preceding posts by Jon
> A. and Val.  Which three concepts are you seeking to bind together?
>
> Val:  Besides consensus and correspondence, you left out the coherence and
> pragmatic/instrumental theories of truth as espoused by nominalists.
> Again, I am inclined to agree with Forster that Peirce's realist approach
> satisfies all of these, rather than reducing truth to only one of them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
> jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> List:
>>
>> I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.
>>
>> Concordance?
>> “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
>> “Index" as a categorization?
>>
>> Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?
>>
>> Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
>> Can anyone expand on this proposal?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Jon and Peirces,
>> > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories
>> of truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by
>> "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
>> > val daniel
>> >
>> > E. Valentine Daniel
>> > Professor of Anthropology
>> > 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
>> > Columbia University
>> > New York, 10027
>> >
>> > (917) 741-7764
>> > e...@columbia.edu
>> >
>> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Peircers,
>> >>
>> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
>> >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
>> >> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
>> >>
>> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-o
>> f-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
>> >>
>> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by
>> ignoring [Peirce]”
>> >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a
>> “Procrustian bed
>> >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more
>> to say
>> >> in that regard if I can get to it.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Jon
>> >>
>> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>> >>> Peircers,
>> >>>
>> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
>> >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
>> >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
>> >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
>> >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
>> >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
>> >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
>> >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
>> >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
>> >>> name for a triadic relation.
>> >>>
>> >>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
>> >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
>> >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
>> >>>
>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_the
>> ory_of_truth
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jon
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
>> >> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
>> >> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
>> >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
>> >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>>
>
>
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt

Jerry C.:  I am a bit puzzled by your questions, since there was no mention
of "order," "index," or "inferring" in the preceding posts by Jon A. and
Val.  Which three concepts are you seeking to bind together?

Val:  Besides consensus and correspondence, you left out the coherence and
pragmatic/instrumental theories of truth as espoused by nominalists.
Again, I am inclined to agree with Forster that Peirce's realist approach
satisfies all of these, rather than reducing truth to only one of them.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> List:
>
> I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.
>
> Concordance?
> “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
> “Index" as a categorization?
>
> Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?
>
> Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
> Can anyone expand on this proposal?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Jon and Peirces,
> > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of
> truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by
> "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
> > val daniel
> >
> > E. Valentine Daniel
> > Professor of Anthropology
> > 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
> > Columbia University
> > New York, 10027
> >
> > (917) 741-7764
> > e...@columbia.edu
> >
> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
> >>
> >> Peircers,
> >>
> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
> >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
> >> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
> >>
> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-
> of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
> >>
> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by
> ignoring [Peirce]”
> >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a
> “Procrustian bed
> >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more
> to say
> >> in that regard if I can get to it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >>> Peircers,
> >>>
> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
> >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
> >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
> >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
> >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
> >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
> >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
> >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
> >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
> >>> name for a triadic relation.
> >>>
> >>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
> >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
> >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
> >>>
> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
> >>>
> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_the
> ory_of_truth
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> >> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> >> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
> >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jerry Rhee

...and there you have it.

Only *everybody* can know the truth.

The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by *all who
investigate*, is what we mean by the truth,

and the object represented in this opinion is the real.


The true precept is not to abstain from hypostatization, but to do it
intelligently.


Hth,

Jerry R


On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:

> List:
>
> I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.
>
> Concordance?
> “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
> “Index" as a categorization?
>
> Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?
>
> Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
> Can anyone expand on this proposal?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel 
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Jon and Peirces,
> > I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of
> truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by
> "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
> > val daniel
> >
> > E. Valentine Daniel
> > Professor of Anthropology
> > 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
> > Columbia University
> > New York, 10027
> >
> > (917) 741-7764
> > e...@columbia.edu
> >
> >> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
> >>
> >> Peircers,
> >>
> >> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
> >> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
> >> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
> >>
> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-
> theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
> >>
> >> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by
> ignoring [Peirce]”
> >> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a
> “Procrustian bed
> >> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more
> to say
> >> in that regard if I can get to it.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> >>> Peircers,
> >>>
> >>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
> >>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
> >>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
> >>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
> >>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
> >>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
> >>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
> >>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
> >>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
> >>> name for a triadic relation.
> >>>
> >>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
> >>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
> >>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
> >>>
> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
> >>>
> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_
> theory_of_truth
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Jon
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> >> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> >> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
> >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jerry LR Chandler

List:

I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion.

Concordance?  
“Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics?
“Index" as a categorization?

Are propositions inferred by “concordances”?

Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together?
Can anyone expand on this proposal?

Cheers

Jerry 


> On Mar 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel  wrote:
> 
> Dear Jon and Peirces,
> I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of 
> truth, viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by 
> "concordance" (what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
> val daniel
> 
> E. Valentine Daniel
> Professor of Anthropology
> 958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
> Columbia University
> New York, 10027
> 
> (917) 741-7764
> e...@columbia.edu
> 
>> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>> 
>> Peircers,
>> 
>> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
>> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
>> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
>> 
>> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
>> 
>> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring 
>> [Peirce]”
>> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a “Procrustian 
>> bed
>> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to say
>> in that regard if I can get to it.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>> Peircers,
>>> 
>>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
>>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
>>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
>>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
>>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
>>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
>>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
>>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
>>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
>>> name for a triadic relation.
>>> 
>>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
>>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
>>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
>>> 
>>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
>>> 
>>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
>> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
>> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
>> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
>> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>> 
>> -
>> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
>> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 


-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jon Awbrey

Val, List,

Proposal accepted! Actually, I feel like I've been working along
these lines ever since I first met up with Peirce. I'm currently
fighting some emotional resistance -- it makes me a little sad to
look at those old wiki-scraps -- the dreams we dreamed about what
Wikipedia could be! a true community of learning and inquiry! but
it was neither designed nor destined to become that. At any rate,
I would begin by poring over the relics I saved and trying to see
what sense we could make of them. By way of secondary literature,
I remember thinking that Susan Haack's 'Evidence and Inquiry' and
Cheryl Misak's 'Truth and the End of Inquiry' were rather helpful
in framing the issue. The papers Susan Awbrey and I wrote in the
90s and 00s attempted to tackle pieces of the puzzle, namely, how
to integrate the object-facing and inter-sign aspects of semiosis,
the 1st implied by correspondence theories and the 2nd implied by
consensus theories of truth.

Published Paper:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1350508401082013

Conference Talk:
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm

Regards,

Jon

On 3/13/2017 2:02 PM, E Valentine Daniel wrote:

Dear Jon and Peirces,
I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of truth, viz., by consensus
and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by "concordance" (what you, Jon, call
"triple correspondence").
val daniel

E. Valentine Daniel
Professor of Anthropology
958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
Columbia University
New York, 10027

(917) 741-7764
e...@columbia.edu

On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
so I started a blog series for attempting that:

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/

I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring
[Peirce]”
and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a “Procrustian bed
for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to say
in that regard if I can get to it.

Regards,

Jon

On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
“triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
name for a triadic relation.

Note. The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread E Valentine Daniel

Dear Jon and Peirces,
I propose that we complete the customary (incomplete/dyadic) theories of truth, 
viz., by consensus and by correspondence, by adding, Truth by "concordance" 
(what you, Jon, call "triple correspondence").
val daniel

E. Valentine Daniel
Professor of Anthropology
958 Schermerhorn Ext.,
Columbia University
New York, 10027

(917) 741-7764
e...@columbia.edu

> On Mar 13, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
> 
> Peircers,
> 
> Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
> there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
> so I started a blog series for attempting that:
> 
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/
> 
> I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring 
> [Peirce]”
> and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a “Procrustian 
> bed
> for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to say
> in that regard if I can get to it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jon
> 
> On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>> Peircers,
>> 
>> I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
>> trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
>> than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
>> their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
>> especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
>> character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
>> To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
>> keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
>> “triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
>> name for a triadic relation.
>> 
>> Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
>> tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
>> of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.
>> 
>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth
>> 
>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
> 
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 



-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

2017-03-13 Thread Jon Awbrey


Peircers,

Looking over these old articles it occurs to me
there may be a few bits in them worth salvaging,
so I started a blog series for attempting that:

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/

I think John Sowa's remarks about the “major failures caused by ignoring 
[Peirce]”
and Jerry Chandler's remarks about later readings serving as a “Procrustian bed
for CSP's concepts” are very apt in this context, and I will have more to say
in that regard if I can get to it.

Regards,

Jon

On 3/10/2017 4:18 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted
trying to justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other
than to reformat them a little here and there, but some of
their material may be instructive for ongoing discussions,
especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on the nominal
character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
To make the shortest possible shrift, I think we have to
keep in mind that “correspondence” for Peirce can mean
“triple correspondence”, in other words, just another
name for a triadic relation.

Note.  The document histories of these InterSciWiki forks
tell me that these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions
of 14 Feb 2007 and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Regards,

Jon



--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

14 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information