Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Logic of Interpretation

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Robert: 

> On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:56 AM, robert marty  wrote:
> 
> Your "demonstration" on the chemical combinations between atoms shows above 
> all your ignorance of mathematical modelling in chemistry. 

Again, you give me a deep belly laugh.

You can access my writing on the mathematical logics of the atomic numbers, 
including an analysis of the potential connections between category theory and 
the natural sciences, are available on Research Gate. 

The paper “An Introduction to Chemical Information Theory” (which is directed 
toward a general scientific readership) was strongly influenced by the 
“Qualsign, Sinsign, Legisign; Icon, Index, Symbol; Rheme, Dicisign, Argument” 
structure of reasoning for the construction of the propositional logics of 
chemical graph theory that relate identity to quantity to scientific logics. 

Your critical comments are welcomed.

Cheers

Jerry 


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation

[Jeffrey Brian Downard]

Jon Schmidt, John Sowa, List,


Jeff D:  If you substitute "texts" for "facts", as you have suggested, how does 
that constrain the inquiries?

Jon Schmidt:  Again, I suggest that it constrains the inquiries to discerning 
the author's intended meaning as expressed in the texts themselves.  At this 
stage, we are only seeking to ascertain what Peirce's actual views were as 
communicated by his writings, not assessing whether they are correct.

JD:  Readers need to carry out the inquiries themselves and then check to see 
if they arrive at the same result. Carrying out these inquiries seems to 
involve facts that go beyond the words written on the pages.

Jon S:  I agree, but I see it as a subsequent step.  First we test our 
interpretative hypotheses against "the words written on the pages" in a 
good-faith effort to make sure that we have properly understood them.  Then we 
test them against reality by conducting our own inquiries along the same lines.

Jeff D:  I disagree with the suggestion that it should be a two-step process. 
Let me distinguish the following questions we can ask as readers of Peirce's 
writings:


  1.   How should we interpret a given text?
  2.  How should we understand the methods Peirce is employing in his inquiries?

For my part, I think that we should try to understand and employ Peirce's 
methods at the same time we are reading the texts. That is, (1) and (2) go hand 
in hand. You really can't make much headway on (1) without considering how 
Peirce is using experimental methods to push inquiry forward. Often, the 
arguments he offers in the texts are really just signposts that he is offering 
readers in the hope that we will be able to follow his lines of inquiry.

In many cases, I find that Peirce is moving so fast and covering so much ground 
that the only way to fill in the gaps is to carry out the inquiries 
myself--drawing on his instructions and suggestions offered in other texts. If 
I am not inquiring myself about the same questions he is asking using the same 
methods he is employing, I often entirely fail to follow the directions 
contained in those signposts. In such cases, I have to start again in order to 
figure out where I lost the thread.

In your response, you seem to have fastened on the following question, which I 
think is quite different from (2) above:  Are the results that Peirce arrived 
at using those methods correct, or do we arrive at different results when using 
the same methods to address the same questions? Even here, we can ask this 
question in a modest fashion by using this approach as a check on our use of 
his methods. If I arrive at a different result, then I take it as an indication 
that I've misunderstood or misapplied his methods.

Having said that, I do take myself to be capable of engaging in my own 
inquiries using these methods, and I find it interesting when I arrive at a 
different result. What is more, one can ask if Peirce is using the right 
methods. Where we have doubts about his methods or results that persist, it is 
only natural to ask how might we improve on those methods in a manner that is 
consonant with the aim of seeking the truth about what is really the case. 
Whenever I head down this track on the List, I try to clarify what I'm doing by 
spelling out where my methods or results differ from Peirce's.

Yours,

Jeff D


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:43 AM Jeffrey Brian Downard 
mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote:

Jon S, List,

The illustration I offer can be made clearer by examining Newton's 
interpretation of Galileo's experiments involving the acceleration of balls 
rolling down inclined planes as compared to the parabolic motion of a 
projectile.

If you are interested in reading Newton's works and examining his methods for 
formulating and testing hypotheses, then I recommend the Newton Project, which 
has the aim of transcribing all of his written works including his notebooks:

http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/texts/newtons-works/scientific?n=25&cat=Science&name=1&tr=1&sort=date&order=asc

The Newton project has been a model for the SPIN project--the main difference 
is that the latter is crowdsourcing the transcription of Peirce's 
manuscriptions.

--Jeff

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

From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:20:10 PM
To: Jon Alan Schmidt
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Interpretation

Jon S, List

How does the method you are employing compare to the methods articulated in 
"The Logic of Drawing History from Ancient Documents"?

If you substitute "texts" for "facts", as you have suggested, how does that 
constrain the inquiries? Let me offer an example. If my aim is to interpret 
Peirce's writings on the study of gravity, then one thing I might do is to 
recreate his experiments by going out and swinging pendulums in the same 
locations--and then comparin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's best and final version of EGs

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

John, List:

Well over a year ago, I noted on-List that R 514 is correctly dated 1909
but mistakenly included some pages from Peirce's 1911 letter to Risteen (
here ).  I
also pointed out that R 669-670 were written during the weeks immediately
prior to that letter, and that they record his switch from cuts to shading (
here ).
As we had discussed a few weeks earlier (here
), shading
is *more iconic* than cuts for representing oddly enclosed graphs as being
scribed on a different *surface *from evenly enclosed graphs, with a
natural boundary rather than a thin line as the discontinuity between
them.  However, I suggest that this comes with a trade-off relative to one
of Peirce's other stated objectives.

CSP:  [The] purpose of the System of Existential Graphs ... [is] to afford
a method (1) as *simple *as possible (that is to say, with as small a
number of arbitrary conventions as possible), for representing propositions
(2) as *iconically*, or diagrammatically and (3) as *analytically *as
possible. (CP 4.561n, 1908)


Technically a scroll is not "just a way of drawing two cuts."  These are
indeed equivalent in *classical *logic, such that "if A then B" entails
"not (A and not-B)" and vice-versa.  However, Peirce recognized that "there
is but one primary and fundamental logical relation, that of illation" (CP
3.440, 1896), which is what the scroll signifies when drawn as a
*single *continuous
cut that crosses itself so that the inner close touches the outer close at
a node (CP 4.435-436, 1903; CP 4.564, 1906; R 669:16, 1911).  By contrast,
negation is *derived *by blackening the entire inner close of such a scroll
to represent absurdity as the consequent, and then shrinking it down to
infinitesimal size (CP 4.454-456, 1903; CP 4.564n, c. 1906; R 669:17-18,
1911).

That being the case, from a strictly *philosophical *standpoint, I suggest
that the scroll is *more analytical* than shading.  As we discussed a few
months later (here
), this is
important when adapting existential graphs to *intuitionistic *logic as
Arnold Oostra has outlined.  Here a scroll is *not *equivalent to nested
cuts; "if A then B" still entails "not (A and not-B)," but "not (A and
not-B)" *does not* entail "if A then B."  In other words, it remains
permissible to detach the inner close of a scroll from its outer close to
become a nested cut, but a nested cut cannot be attached to the outer close
to create a scroll.

Nevertheless, from a strictly *practical *standpoint, I continue to agree
that NEM 3:162-169 is Peirce's simplest and clearest explanation of
existential graphs, especially in conjunction with R 669-670 providing
helpful background and context.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:23 PM John F. Sowa  wrote:

> I have often said that the excerpt of L231 published in NEM 3:162-169 is
> Peirce's best and final version of existential graphs.  For a copy and some
> brief comments, see http://jfsowa.com/peirce/eg1911.pdf
>
> Following are some objections to the claim that eg1911 is definitive:
>
> 1. In his 1973 book, Don Roberts cited L231, but he did not mention its
> notation (shaded ovals for negation instead of cuts) or its rules of
> inference (three symmetric pairs).  He also cited R514, which contains a
> version that is almost identical to the version in L231.  But he did not
> discuss the notation or terminology in either one.  Apparently, he did not
> consider them important.
>
> 2. During the years between R514 (estimated date 1909) and L231 (1911),
> Peirce continued to use the notation and terminology of his earlier
> writings on EGs.  Therefore, he didn't consider the R514-L231 version a
> replacement for the earlier versions.
>
> 3. The text of L231 ignores a large amount of Peirce's terminology and
> writings about EGs.  It says nothing about Gamma graphs or the many complex
> issues they represent. The 1911 version seems to be a brief  summary rather
> than a definitive presentation.
>
> I recently discussed these issues with Martin Irvine (on cc list above).
> He mentioned some related MSS from 1911 and said that the date of 1909 for
> R514 was wrong.  It is a highly marked-up draft of L231, and it is now
> grouped with L231.  He also mentioned other MSS, also from 1911, which use
> the same notation.  He said that no later MSS with examples or discussion
> of EGs have been found.
>
> About a month before L231 (dated 1911 June 22), Peirce wrote R669 (May 25
> to June 2) and a revised version R670 (June 7 to 17).  For negation, Peirce
> used a black area with the enclosed graph in white.
>
> 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Requesting an article

[Ben Udell]

Sorry: ALCINA CORTEZ.

Best, Ben

On 7/18/2020 6:07 PM, Ben Udell wrote:


Hi, Aldina

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Requesting an article

[Ben Udell]

Hi, Aldina,

I don't have a PDF of "The Rheme/Dicent/Argument Distinction by Joseph 
Ransdell.


It's a Springer article. Here in the USA, I can access all but 2 pages 
of the article at:


https://books.google.com/books?id=3PzxBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22important+distinction+of+sign-type%22+OR+%22Rheme/Dicent/Argument+Distinction%22

Other than that there's a Google search on

"important distinction of sign-type" OR "Rheme/Dicent/Argument Distinction"

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22important+distinction+of+sign-type%22+OR+%22Rheme%2FDicent%2FArgument+Distinction%22

Among the search results are sites where you can get the article if 
you're a member at the site, or request a copy of the article.


Best,
Ben Udell

On 7/18/2020 4:55 PM, Alcina Cortez wrote:
Hi Peirce-L's subscribers, I am very much seeking to read the article 
The Rheme/ Dicent/ Argument Distinction by Joseph Ransdell. Can anyone 
in the group kindly provide me with a PDF of it? Thank you very much, 
All my kindest, *alcina cortez*


www.objectsofsound.com 

Antes de imprimir este e-mail pense bem se é necessário fazê-lo.
Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

[PEIRCE-L] Requesting an article

[Alcina Cortez]

Hi Peirce-L's subscribers,

I am very much seeking to read the article The Rheme/ Dicent/ Argument
Distinction by Joseph Ransdell.

Can anyone in the group kindly provide me with a PDF of it?

Thank you very much,
All my kindest,






*alcina cortez*

www.objectsofsound.com 

Antes de imprimir este e-mail pense bem se é necessário fazê-lo.
Before printing this e-mail think if it is necessary.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

[PEIRCE-L] Two missing files (for Peirce's best and final version of EGs

[John F. Sowa]

Robert Marty noticed that I forgot to upload two files that I cited in my
previous
note:
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/r670.pdf
http://jfsowa.com/peirce/L378.htm
I
thank Robert, and I apologize for any inconvenience.
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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.