Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Empirical or inductive logic

[Helmut Raulien]

Kirsti, list,

I also think, that "negation" is an interesting and urgent topic. Peirce´s graphs are maybe based on exclusion, but is exclusion the same as negation? And, is exclusion the opposite of inclusion (Venn?) And is negation of negation the same as affirmation? Many questions, of which I suspect each answer to be "No". But we want to find the "Yes"ses, dont we.

Example: There is said (in the internet) that integrity is based on identity. I don´t agree:

Identity is traital negation, definition by exclusion of certain traits, and keeping the left ones, and if there are none, just pick any out of the blue, like nations, ethnics, your mothers, esoterics, religions, or else.

Integrity is negation of negation of temporal and situative differences of behaviour.

So both are completely different, but are not opposites either, as they concern different things. So there may be a negation which is not a negation.

So much for that, I hope I have completely confused you, because complete confusion is the most democratic starting point for a fruitful discussion. Best, Helmut.

 

 

 

 26. Mai 2018 um 18:38 Uhr
 kirst...@saunalahti.fi
wrote:

John,

I took up your reference to vol 4 in Chronological ed. - I you can shed
any more light on loops and twists in CPS's way to his latest
existential graps, I would be most grateful.

Greimas, the Lithuanian semiotician I have met and discussed with, used
a square similar to the one in page 397. It turned out that he had never
thought of his semiotic square in terms of triad (or triple) relations.

A square, like the diagram in CSP page 397, can be folded two ways. Then
one gets two triangles. One recto, one verso, each visible at a time,
but not together (the very idea of recto and verso).

My interest lies mainly on the relation of logical negation and other
forms of opposition. Pythagorean oppositions, for example are often
treated as negations, without proper grounds.


Best,

Kirsti Määttänen


John F Sowa kirjoitti 19.5.2018 18:44:
> On 5/18/2018 12:54 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
>> I've only seen Venn mention Peirce in regard to Peirce's symbolism for
>> symbolic logic. It's too bad there wasn't more interaction between the
>> two.
>
> I agree.
>
> After reading your note, I didn't do an exhaustive search, but
> I found that Peirce (a) had a high regard for Venn, (b) recognized
> the limitations and errors in Venn's writings, and (c) considered
> Venn's errors a stimulating starting point for his own thinking.
>
> That led me to Venn's articles from 1880, which may have had a
> significant influence on Peirce's thinking about graph logics.
> They're in the 1880 proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
> Society, which can be downloaded from Google Books:
>
> "On the various notations adopted for expressing the common
> propositions of Logic", pp. 36-47 (55-66).
>
> This article includes brief excerpts from a large number of
> sources, including Frege (1879) and Peirce (1880). But Venn's
> comments about Frege's notation were not encouraging. See
> the attached FregeByVenn.jpg.
>
> Immediately following that article (pp. 47-59) is Venn's
> article "On geometrical diagrams for the representation of
> logical propositions." In this one, he compares his own
> diagrams with a variety of other representations.
>
> In 1882, Peirce wrote a letter to O. H. Mitchell (Writings,
> vol 4, pp. 394 to 399) in which he drew diagrams to represent
> the "logic of relatives.
>
> John


-
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] Empirical or inductive logic

[kirstima]

John,

I took up your reference to vol 4 in Chronological ed. - I you can shed 
any more light on loops and twists in CPS's way to his latest 
existential graps, I would be most grateful.


Greimas, the Lithuanian semiotician I have met and discussed with, used 
a square similar to the one in page 397. It turned out that he had never 
thought of his semiotic square in terms of triad (or triple) relations.


A square, like the diagram in CSP page 397, can be folded two ways. Then 
one gets two triangles. One recto, one verso, each visible at a time, 
but not together (the very idea of recto and verso).


My interest lies mainly on the relation of logical negation and other 
forms of opposition. Pythagorean oppositions, for example are often 
treated as negations, without proper grounds.



Best,

Kirsti Määttänen


John F Sowa kirjoitti 19.5.2018 18:44:

On 5/18/2018 12:54 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
I've only seen Venn mention Peirce in regard to Peirce's symbolism for 
symbolic logic. It's too bad there wasn't more interaction between the 
two.


I agree.

After reading your note,  I didn't do an exhaustive search, but
I found that Peirce (a) had a high regard for Venn, (b) recognized
the limitations and errors in Venn's writings, and (c) considered
Venn's errors a stimulating starting point for his own thinking.

That led me to Venn's articles from 1880, which may have had a
significant influence on Peirce's thinking about graph logics.
They're in the 1880 proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical
Society, which can be downloaded from Google Books:

"On the various notations adopted for expressing the common
propositions of Logic", pp. 36-47 (55-66).

This article includes brief excerpts from a large number of
sources, including Frege (1879) and Peirce (1880).  But Venn's
comments about Frege's notation were not encouraging.  See
the attached FregeByVenn.jpg.

Immediately following that article (pp. 47-59) is Venn's
article "On geometrical diagrams for the representation of
logical propositions."  In this one, he compares his own
diagrams with a variety of other representations.

In 1882, Peirce wrote a letter to O. H. Mitchell (Writings,
vol 4, pp. 394 to 399) in which he drew diagrams to represent
the "logic of relatives.

John



-
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] Empirical or inductive logic Open-ended logics?

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List, John:

(N.B. This post includes substantial technical material. I conjecture that it 
is readable for a substantial subset of the readers of this list serve. No 
apologies, just my views expressed within the lexical field of the natural 
sciences.)

Before responding to your insightful comments, I would note that the opened 
ended logic of the chemical sciences is extremely important philosophically as 
well as for interpreting CSP’s writings.
The logical signature of set theory and classical mathematics is remote from 
the logical signature of formal chemical logic. Despite this profoundly deep 
logical distinction, amazingly, the sciences of physics and chemistry are 
Siamese twins, symbolically conjoined by the facts of life and the realism of 
matter. 

> On May 24, 2018, at 8:01 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> On 5/23/2018 2:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>> This is because CSP logic, which he repeatedly said was based on chemistry 
>> failed and the reasons why it failed to represent chemical logic now very 
>> clear, at least to me.
> 
> Peirce never used the term "based on".  It would be better to say
> "an analogy with the diagrams of organic chemistry”."an analogy with the 
> diagrams of organic chemistry”.

I agree that my choice of terms “based on” was conceptual, not empirical.

But, in my opinion, the phrase:
> "an analogy with the diagrams of organic chemistry”.
does not capture the essence of the relationship between CSP writings and 
chemistry.

CSP fully appreciated that Kant’s late 18 th Century view of chemistry as a 
non-mathematical science was completely wrong BECAUSE ALL CHEMICAL EXPERIMENTS 
ARE BASED ON CALCULATIONS. His rejection of Kantian philosophy was clear and 
crisp. It was well stated.
CSP recognized the extreme philosophical importance of the open-ended nature of 
chemical logic. He also recognized the generative and / or creative 
(evolutionary?) of atoms informing molecules quantitatively. Kant merely opined 
about the role of mathematics in the sciences.

CSP set about to develop a logic that, within that historical 19 th century 
timeframe, was consistent with the realism of chemical experimentation. 

Roughly speaking, during the first half of the 19 th Century, the skeletal 
logic of “ionic” chemistry was developed as “valence” of inorganic stuff. In 
the second half of the 19 th Century, the emergence of the principles of 
organic chemistry was in progress  as ”radicals continuing multiple atoms” but 
lacked inclusiveness during CSP lifetime. 

 By primitive state, I mean that VAST number of unexplainable organic 
structures existed. These were mostly crystals extracted from biological 
organisms, without either a mathematical or physical foundation for the 
relationships between nouns as subjects and physical attributes as predicates.  

Of course, CSP's efforts to construct a mathematical logic for chemistry 
failed.  But brilliant scientists often fail in very very interesting ways such 
the later generations profit from their writings. Such was CSP fate, as he 
foresaw in his philosophical view of scientific inquiry. (Thus, the notion of 
the synductive logic of the perplex numbers system emerges from CSP’s notion of 
“abductive logic” in augmentation of the mathematical and physical necessity to 
follow the two principles laws of physics of Newton and Coulomb.) 

> 
> Venn had written two articles in the same issue:  the first one
> gave many examples of logic notations, including Frege (1879) and
> Peirce (1880).  The second one discussed many kinds of diagrams
> for logic, and it added that Frege's notation could also be
> considered a kind of diagram.
> 
>> he foresaw the grammatical constraints in his (1860’s)
>> specification of the breadth and depth of information.
> 
> Without seeing a quotation, I don't know exactly what you're
> referring to.  But the inverse relation of breadth vs depth
> (also called extension vs intention or comprehension) is
> as old as Aristotle.  And it is usually called a semantic
> relations, not a syntactic one.
> 
>> Peirce failed to grasp the notion of identity in chemistry,
>> even in its logic form of 1890-1910.
> 
> The first-order subset of his existential graphs have an exact
> mapping to and from his 1885 algebraic notation for FOL.

So what are you seeking to infer from this relationship.

If you are aware of a propositions / logical analyses that describe the FOL of 
matter, I would greatly appreciate the reference.

The concept of identity in chemistry is a physical concept that emerges from 
the antecedent elements and consequential attributes of compositions.  

(I presume that you are NOT asserting that the emergence of the organic from 
the inorganic is a process of FOL.)

> 
> I'm not aware of his discussions of "identity in chemistry".
> Could you quote an example?

He discussed the relationships between optical isomers of (organic) tartaric 
acid discovered by Pasteur and “explained”