Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Gene, list,

Gene thanks for putting the time and effort into this post. You have most
certainly addressed my criticisms that leading to your conclusion:

EH:  Again, I deeply admire Peirce’s vast philosophy. But I also abhor the
narrow-mindedness of these types of private beliefs he seems to have held,
all the more so given the fecundity of his ideas such as agapasm. I wish
that the deep poverty and injustice Peirce personally suffered could have
tempered his prejudices in later life and opened his eyes to some of the
institutional sources of injustice and poverty, but I don’t get the sense
that that happened.


I think I will have to reevaluate my view of Peirce's character as I've had
to do with other thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger. For now I will
say that your argumentation is persuasive.

Best,

Gary R



*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Eugene Halton 
wrote:

> Dear Gary R.,
>
> Sorry that I misconstrued your criticism earlier, that it was
> not about potential catastrophe but about whether “greed, power, and
> especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals” are
> features of actually existing science and technology rather than external
> to them. Yes, we do disagree and probably will continue to, though I am
> grateful for your criticism.
>
> When scientists such as Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.
> H. Huxley and noted for coining the term “the new synthesis” in mid-20th
> century genetics called for “the lower strata” to be denied “too easy
> access” to hospitals to reduce reproduction, and stated that “long
> unemployment should be a ground for sterilization,” it was the voice of
> actually existing science speaking, just as it was when noted ethologist
> and Nazi Konrad Lorenz made similar statements in 1941, after Nazi “medical
> murders” under the aegis of eugenics had begun. Admitting ways in which
> wrongheaded and potentially evil ideas can operate in the practices of
> science and technology is, to my way of thinking, a means of acknowledging
> the fallibility and potentials of these practices for self-correction.
>
> You also say, “You will have to offer much more evidence if
> I’m to believe that Peirce’s character and Carnegie's were ‘similar,’ that
> Peirce was ‘hypocritical’ in his condemnation of the Gospel of Greed. And
> you draw some extraordinarily conclusions from a few facts and a single
> comment to Lady Welby by Peirce, while your question as to what side of the
> civil war Peirce would place himself based on his father's views is bogus.”
>
> Fair enough. I admire Peirce’s criticism of the gospel of
> greed. I simply wanted to indicate that his aristocratic outlook struck me
> at odds with that criticism. I did not compare his character with
> Carnegie’s, only that other comments Peirce made later seemed similar to
> what Carnegie expressed.
>
>
>
> Here below is a fuller version of Peirce’s 1908 letter to Lady
> Welby, where he says “The people ought to be enslaved,” that universal
> suffrage is “ruinous,” that labor-organizations are “clamouring today for
> the ‘right’ to persecute and kill people as they please,” that the “lowest
> class” “insists on enslaving the upper class.”
>
> Peirce is clearly anti-worker, anti-union, anti-lower class,
> pro-upper-class in these statements, with zero empathy for the plight of
> workers in the face of rabid industrial capitalism in America. Consider,
> Upton Sinclair published his novel *The Jungle*, two years earlier,
> depicting the sordid conditions of slaughterhouse workers in Chicago.
> Consider that pragmatists John Dewey and George Herbert Mead were already
> actively involved with settlement houses in Chicago, with lower class
> immigrants and workers, seeking a critical understanding of democracy in
> the grip of industrial capitalism.
>
> Peirce: “Being a convinced Pragmaticist in Semeiotic, naturally and
> necessarily nothing can appear to me sillier than rationalism; and folly in
> politics can go no further than English liberalism. The people ought to be
> enslaved; only the slaveholders ought to practice the virtues that alone
> can maintain their rule. England will discover too late that it has sapped
> the foundations of culture. The most perfect language that was ever spoken
> was classical Greek; and it is obvious that no people could have spoken it
> who were not provided with plenty of intelligent slaves. As to us
> Americans, who had, at first, so much political sense, we always showed a
> disposition to support such aristocracy as we had; and we have constantly
> experienced, and felt too keenly, the ruinous effects of universal suffrage
> and weakly exercised government. Here are the labor-organizations, into
> whose hands we are delivering the 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



It is, then, in the nature of the good man to do injustice voluntarily, and
of the bad man to do it involuntarily, that is, if the good man has a good
soul.



Then he who voluntarily errs and does disgraceful and unjust acts, Hippias,
if there be such a man, would be no other than the good man.



Writings are naturally accessible to all who can read. Therefore a
philosopher who chose the second way could expound only such opinions as
were suitable for the nonphilosophic majority: all of his writings would
have to be, strictly speaking, exoteric.



These opinions would not be in all respects consonant with truth. Being a
philosopher, that is, hating "the lie in the soul" more than anything else,
he would not deceive himself about the fact that such opinions are merely
"likely tales," or "noble lies," or "probable opinions," and would leave it
to his philosophic readers to disentangle the truth from its poetic or
dialectic presentation. But he would defeat his purpose if he indicated
clearly which of his statements expressed a noble lie, and which the still
more noble truth.



What, then, is our *ultimate aim*?



Best,

Jerry R


On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Eugene Halton 
wrote:

> Dear Gary R.,
>
> Sorry that I misconstrued your criticism earlier, that it was
> not about potential catastrophe but about whether “greed, power, and
> especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals” are
> features of actually existing science and technology rather than external
> to them. Yes, we do disagree and probably will continue to, though I am
> grateful for your criticism.
>
> When scientists such as Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s bulldog” T.
> H. Huxley and noted for coining the term “the new synthesis” in mid-20th
> century genetics called for “the lower strata” to be denied “too easy
> access” to hospitals to reduce reproduction, and stated that “long
> unemployment should be a ground for sterilization,” it was the voice of
> actually existing science speaking, just as it was when noted ethologist
> and Nazi Konrad Lorenz made similar statements in 1941, after Nazi “medical
> murders” under the aegis of eugenics had begun. Admitting ways in which
> wrongheaded and potentially evil ideas can operate in the practices of
> science and technology is, to my way of thinking, a means of acknowledging
> the fallibility and potentials of these practices for self-correction.
>
> You also say, “You will have to offer much more evidence if
> I’m to believe that Peirce’s character and Carnegie's were ‘similar,’ that
> Peirce was ‘hypocritical’ in his condemnation of the Gospel of Greed. And
> you draw some extraordinarily conclusions from a few facts and a single
> comment to Lady Welby by Peirce, while your question as to what side of the
> civil war Peirce would place himself based on his father's views is bogus.”
>
> Fair enough. I admire Peirce’s criticism of the gospel of
> greed. I simply wanted to indicate that his aristocratic outlook struck me
> at odds with that criticism. I did not compare his character with
> Carnegie’s, only that other comments Peirce made later seemed similar to
> what Carnegie expressed.
>
>
>
> Here below is a fuller version of Peirce’s 1908 letter to Lady
> Welby, where he says “The people ought to be enslaved,” that universal
> suffrage is “ruinous,” that labor-organizations are “clamouring today for
> the ‘right’ to persecute and kill people as they please,” that the “lowest
> class” “insists on enslaving the upper class.”
>
> Peirce is clearly anti-worker, anti-union, anti-lower class,
> pro-upper-class in these statements, with zero empathy for the plight of
> workers in the face of rabid industrial capitalism in America. Consider,
> Upton Sinclair published his novel *The Jungle*, two years earlier,
> depicting the sordid conditions of slaughterhouse workers in Chicago.
> Consider that pragmatists John Dewey and George Herbert Mead were already
> actively involved with settlement houses in Chicago, with lower class
> immigrants and workers, seeking a critical understanding of democracy in
> the grip of industrial capitalism.
>
> Peirce: “Being a convinced Pragmaticist in Semeiotic, naturally and
> necessarily nothing can appear to me sillier than rationalism; and folly in
> politics can go no further than English liberalism. The people ought to be
> enslaved; only the slaveholders ought to practice the virtues that alone
> can maintain their rule. England will discover too late that it has sapped
> the foundations of culture. The most perfect language that was ever spoken
> was classical Greek; and it is obvious that no people could have spoken it
> who were not provided with plenty of intelligent slaves. As to us
> Americans, who had, at first, so much political sense, we always showed a
> disposition to support such aristocracy as we had; and we have constantly
> 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Gene, Edwina, Kirsti,  list

Gene wrote:

EH: Regarding the potential for catastrophe, Gary R. stated, “that you
would, however, find it difficult to find in Peirce very much support for
your thesis.”


The potential for catastrophe (regarding which I fully agree with you) was
not the 'thesis' that I said you would "find it difficult to find In Peirce
very much support." Re: "catastrophe" I fully agree with you since
quotations we've both offered make Peirce's view of that quite clear, for
example, his writing in 'Evolutionary Love' "The twentieth century, in its
latter half, shall surely see the deluge-tempest burst upon the social
order -- to clear upon a world as deep in ruin as that greed-philosophy has
long plunged it into guilt." Indeed the "deluge-tempest" didn't even take
as long as Peirce thought it would as the First World War broke out just a
few months following his death. The rest of the horror of that century and
the continued horror in this century, both brought about by the crazed
greed and power seeking of a few men is, in my view, virtually self-evident.

What I didn't agree with was your assertion that "The greed, power, and
especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals are not
simply external to actually existing science and technology, but are
essential features of the system." I have already given my reasons for
disagreeing with you on that thesis so I won't repeat them now; and I
assume that we are still in disagreement on this matter even while you've
offered additional examples of "corruption within science itself." There is
not an actual or even, I think, conceivable institution where one won't
find corrupt men and women (mainly men). I also agree with Edwina that
Peirce was entirely and explicitly opposed to Social Darwinism.

In addition, your impugning of Peirce's character seems to me over the top.
You wrote:

EH: Peirce’s criticism of the greed philosophy, including a reference to
how he was swindled, did not seem to apply to workers. In fact, his
criticism of the philosophy of greed rings hypocritical when some of his
other comments are taken into account, which read as similar to those of
Carnegie.


You will have to offer much more evidence if I'm to believe that Peirce's
character and Carnegie's were "similar," that Peirce was "hypocritical" in
his condemnation of the Gospel of Greed.

And you draw some extraordinarily conclusions from a few facts and a single
comment to Lady Welby by Peirce, while your question as to what side of the
civil war Peirce would place himself based on his father's views is bogus.
May none of our characters be judged on the basis of the views of our
parents. You wrote:

EH: As Peirce wrote to Lady Welby: “The people ought to be enslaved; only
the slaveholders ought to practice the virtues that alone can maintain
their rule.”  (*Semiotics and Significs, *edited by Charles S. Hardwick
(Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1977), p. 78). Given that
Peirce lived through the American civil war (not fighting in it), and that
his father Benjamin had been pro-slavery before the war, Charles’s advocacy
of a “virtuous” slaveholding elite strikes me as repugnant and puerile.

Can you guess what side of the slaveholder/enslaved divide Peirce would put
himself on?


I do not take Peirce's comments about "the people" (not, btw, the African
people held as slaves in America) literally. He is writing to a, I
believe *relatively
*liberal, friend in England, a woman whom he's gotten to know well through
letters, one who will know that this is not to be taken literally (as you
clearly have). I find his comment (in context) more along the lines of
Jasper, very skeptical of majoritarian democracy, famously arguing for a
form of government guided by "an intellectual elite." There is just too
much else in Peirce suggesting that he upholds the ethics of the Gospel of
Love, including, for an example recently discussed on the list, his support
for Abbot against the unfair criticism of his work by Royce.

Best,

Gary




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Stephen quoted Peirce:
>
> *We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts
> before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason"
> presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they
> come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties
> to the suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is
> man's glory! **Peirce: CP 1.627 *
>
>
> In point of fact this quote is not from CP 1.627 but .626.
>
> But first consider that the method of scientific inquiry is not that of a
> jury, now is it?
>
> Indeed, the quotation exemplifies the reason why I as list moderator ask
> contributors to 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Eugene Halton]

ot hard to find if we do look. To give the one example I’m most
>> familiar with, Kate Raworth in *Doughnut Economics* gives a critique of
>> the “dismal science” which is not much different from (though more specific
>> than) yours or Peirce’s. And she presents an alternative economics which is
>> much more consistent with current ecological sciences (and, I might add,
>> with social justice).
>>
>> If science in general is so congenial to the political powers that
>> currently be in the U.S., why are they so eager to muzzle scientists, take
>> down climate change websites, etc.?
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> } What is now proved was once only imagined. [Blake] {
>>
>> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu>
>> *Sent:* 5-Mar-18 16:01
>> *To:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital
>> importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Gary R.
>>
>> You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a
>> problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by “the
>> world’s power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say, “Peirce himself
>> almost certainly did find the essential “wicked problems” to be a
>> consequence of the political-economic system, not science itself.” I
>> disagree. Peirce actually did severly criticise the science of political
>> economy itself as a philosophy of greed:
>>
>> “The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we all
>> begin to review its doings and to think what character it is destined to
>> bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of future historians. It
>> will be called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political economy has
>> more direct relations with all the branches of its activity than has any
>> other science. Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too.
>> It is this: Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest
>> prices, the fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the
>> dealings between men, and leads to the *summum bonum*, food in plenty
>> and perfect comfort. Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of
>> intelligence. I do not mean to say that this is one of the legitimate
>> conclusions of political economy, the scientific character of which I fully
>> acknowledge. But the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often
>> temporarily encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study of
>> physics has encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the
>> great attention paid to economical questions during our century has induced
>> an exaggeration of the beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate
>> results of sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which comes
>> unwittingly to this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation of the
>> human race and in the evolution of the universe.” 6.290:
>>
>>
>>
>> Peirce was criticizing the science of political economy of
>> his time as reaching what Peirce held to be a false generalization. But it
>> was the science itself that held this false generalization, not simply
>> outsiders. And Peirce’s criticism extended to Darwin’s scientific theory of
>> natural selection:
>>
>>
>>
>> “The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends
>> politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal and
>> vegetable life. The vast majority of our contemporary naturalists hold the
>> opinion that the true cause of those exquisite and marvelous adaptations of
>> nature for which, when I was a boy, men used to extol the divine wisdom, is
>> that creatures are so crowded together that those of them that happen to
>> have the slightest advantage force those less pushing into situations
>> unfavorable to multiplication or even kill them before they reach the age
>> of reproduction. Among animals, the mere mechanical individualism is vastly
>> re-enforced as a power making for good by the animal's ruthless greed. As
>> Darwin puts it on his title-page, it is the struggle for existence; and he
>> should have added for his motto: Every individual for himself, and the
>> Devil take the hindmost!” 6.293
>>
>> Peirce did not reject Darwin’s theory, which he admired, but
>> argued that it was a partial view of evolution, to which Peirce added two
>> other modalitie

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[kirstima]

List,

I second Gene's views. A most important post.A most important CSP quote!

Kirsti Määttänen

Eugene Halton kirjoitti 5.3.2018 23:01:

Dear Gary R.

You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is
a problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by
“the world’s power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say,
“Peirce himself almost certainly did find the essential “wicked
problems” to be a consequence of the political-economic system, not
science itself.” I disagree. Peirce actually did severly criticise
the science of political economy itself as a philosophy of greed:

“The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we
all begin to review its doings and to think what character it is
destined to bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of
future historians. It will be called, I guess, the Economical Century;
for political economy has more direct relations with all the branches
of its activity than has any other science. Well, political economy
has its formula of redemption, too. It is this: Intelligence in the
service of greed ensures the justest prices, the fairest contracts,
the most enlightened conduct of all the dealings between men, and
leads to the _summum bonum_, food in plenty and perfect comfort. Food
for whom? Why, for the greedy master of intelligence. I do not mean to
say that this is one of the legitimate conclusions of political
economy, the scientific character of which I fully acknowledge. But
the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often temporarily
encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study of physics has
encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the great
attention paid to economical questions during our century has induced
an exaggeration of the beneficial effects of greed and of the
unfortunate results of sentiment, until there has resulted a
philosophy which comes unwittingly to this, that greed is the great
agent in the elevation of the human race and in the evolution of the
universe.” 6.290:

Peirce was criticizing the science of political economy of
his time as reaching what Peirce held to be a false generalization.
But it was the science itself that held this false generalization, not
simply outsiders. And Peirce’s criticism extended to Darwin’s
scientific theory of natural selection:

“The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends
politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal
and vegetable life. The vast majority of our contemporary naturalists
hold the opinion that the true cause of those exquisite and marvelous
adaptations of nature for which, when I was a boy, men used to extol
the divine wisdom, is that creatures are so crowded together that
those of them that happen to have the slightest advantage force those
less pushing into situations unfavorable to multiplication or even
kill them before they reach the age of reproduction. Among animals,
the mere mechanical individualism is vastly re-enforced as a power
making for good by the animal's ruthless greed. As Darwin puts it on
his title-page, it is the struggle for existence; and he should have
added for his motto: Every individual for himself, and the Devil take
the hindmost!” 6.293

Peirce did not reject Darwin’s theory, which he admired,
but argued that it was a partial view of evolution, to which Peirce
added two other modalities to produce a three category model. But it
was Darwin’s scientific theory, not oligarch Andrew Carnegie’s
capitalist expropriation of it, that Peirce criticized.

My criticism of the overreach of science and technology
comes from somewhat of a similar place. I’m criticizing the costs of
outlooks which take precise elements of reality as the whole of
reality, myopically, while excluding real elements in ways whose costs
and consequences have now brought the biosphere to the gates of
catastrophe. Yes, I would agree that Peirce offers a much broader
understanding of science, but that does not excuse the ways in which
science and technology have been willing perps in unsustainability as
well.

Gene H

PS Dear Edwina, I did not address fossil fuels, perhaps you were
responding to Gary R’s discussion of fossil fuels. But I would say
that there, as in any technology, it is not simply a question about
human comfort, but rather the question of sustainable limits: not
simply for human comfort, but for a longer “seven generations”
outlook inclusive of the community of life.




-
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: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

f we do look. To give the one example I’m most
> familiar with, Kate Raworth in *Doughnut Economics* gives a critique of
> the “dismal science” which is not much different from (though more specific
> than) yours or Peirce’s. And she presents an alternative economics which is
> much more consistent with current ecological sciences (and, I might add,
> with social justice).
>
> If science in general is so congenial to the political powers that
> currently be in the U.S., why are they so eager to muzzle scientists, take
> down climate change websites, etc.?
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> } What is now proved was once only imagined. [Blake] {
>
> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway
>
>
>
> *From:* Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu>
> *Sent:* 5-Mar-18 16:01
> *To:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital
> importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason
>
>
>
> Dear Gary R.
>
> You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a
> problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by “the
> world’s power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say, “Peirce himself
> almost certainly did find the essential “wicked problems” to be a
> consequence of the political-economic system, not science itself.” I
> disagree. Peirce actually did severly criticise the science of political
> economy itself as a philosophy of greed:
>
> “The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we all
> begin to review its doings and to think what character it is destined to
> bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of future historians. It
> will be called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political economy has
> more direct relations with all the branches of its activity than has any
> other science. Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too.
> It is this: Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest
> prices, the fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the
> dealings between men, and leads to the *summum bonum*, food in plenty and
> perfect comfort. Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of intelligence.
> I do not mean to say that this is one of the legitimate conclusions of
> political economy, the scientific character of which I fully acknowledge.
> But the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often temporarily
> encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study of physics has
> encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the great attention
> paid to economical questions during our century has induced an exaggeration
> of the beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate results of
> sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which comes unwittingly to
> this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation of the human race and
> in the evolution of the universe.” 6.290:
>
>
>
> Peirce was criticizing the science of political economy of his
> time as reaching what Peirce held to be a false generalization. But it was
> the science itself that held this false generalization, not simply
> outsiders. And Peirce’s criticism extended to Darwin’s scientific theory of
> natural selection:
>
>
>
> “The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends
> politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal and
> vegetable life. The vast majority of our contemporary naturalists hold the
> opinion that the true cause of those exquisite and marvelous adaptations of
> nature for which, when I was a boy, men used to extol the divine wisdom, is
> that creatures are so crowded together that those of them that happen to
> have the slightest advantage force those less pushing into situations
> unfavorable to multiplication or even kill them before they reach the age
> of reproduction. Among animals, the mere mechanical individualism is vastly
> re-enforced as a power making for good by the animal's ruthless greed. As
> Darwin puts it on his title-page, it is the struggle for existence; and he
> should have added for his motto: Every individual for himself, and the
> Devil take the hindmost!” 6.293
>
> Peirce did not reject Darwin’s theory, which he admired, but
> argued that it was a partial view of evolution, to which Peirce added two
> other modalities to produce a three category model. But it was Darwin’s
> scientific theory, not oligarch Andrew Carnegie’s capitalist expropriation
> of it, that Peirce criticized.
>
> My criticism of the overreach of science and technology comes
> from somewhat of a similar place. I’m criticizing the costs of outlooks
> which take precise elements 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Stephen C. Rose]

Glad to see this discussion. I noted in something Gene wrote elsewhere a
representation of one of P's earliest triadic formulations as I, It and
Thou which made me think of Peirce as a predecessor of Martin Buber. In any
case, I think this discussion casts light on recent discussions which
center on somewhat technical terminology.  It might be interesting to
regard the triad descriptively, in terms of what each element contributes
to the actual achievement implicit in the triadic maxim. I have to assume
that this maxim is meant to have actual "real world" results and that the
triad is meant to illuminate these. I find Edwina's remarks helpful in
noting the real if mixed blessings of whatever we call the last few
centuries. And also in describing firstness, secondness, and thirdness.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:36 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:

> Gene,
>
> It’s questionable whether Political Economy is a science at all in the
> Peircean sense of that word; maybe to him it was no more genuinely
> scientific than, well, the Gospel. But if we consider 21st-century
> Economics as a science, then we should look for self-criticism, and
> criticism of “classical” economic theories, within the profession, as
> symptomatic of the science being genuine in that Peircean sense. And that
> is not hard to find if we do look. To give the one example I’m most
> familiar with, Kate Raworth in *Doughnut Economics* gives a critique of
> the “dismal science” which is not much different from (though more specific
> than) yours or Peirce’s. And she presents an alternative economics which is
> much more consistent with current ecological sciences (and, I might add,
> with social justice).
>
> If science in general is so congenial to the political powers that
> currently be in the U.S., why are they so eager to muzzle scientists, take
> down climate change websites, etc.?
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> } What is now proved was once only imagined. [Blake] {
>
> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway
>
>
>
> *From:* Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu>
> *Sent:* 5-Mar-18 16:01
> *To:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital
> importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason
>
>
>
> Dear Gary R.
>
> You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a
> problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by “the
> world’s power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say, “Peirce himself
> almost certainly did find the essential “wicked problems” to be a
> consequence of the political-economic system, not science itself.” I
> disagree. Peirce actually did severly criticise the science of political
> economy itself as a philosophy of greed:
>
> “The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we all
> begin to review its doings and to think what character it is destined to
> bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of future historians. It
> will be called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political economy has
> more direct relations with all the branches of its activity than has any
> other science. Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too.
> It is this: Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest
> prices, the fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the
> dealings between men, and leads to the *summum bonum*, food in plenty and
> perfect comfort. Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of intelligence.
> I do not mean to say that this is one of the legitimate conclusions of
> political economy, the scientific character of which I fully acknowledge.
> But the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often temporarily
> encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study of physics has
> encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the great attention
> paid to economical questions during our century has induced an exaggeration
> of the beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate results of
> sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which comes unwittingly to
> this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation of the human race and
> in the evolution of the universe.” 6.290:
>
>
>
> Peirce was criticizing the science of political economy of his
> time as reaching what Peirce held to be a false generalization. But it was
> the science itself that held this false generalization, not simply
> outsiders. And Peirce’s criticism extended to Darwin’s scientific theory of
> natural selection:
>
>
>
> “The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends
> politico-economical views of progress to the entir

RE: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[gnox]

Gene,

It’s questionable whether Political Economy is a science at all in the Peircean 
sense of that word; maybe to him it was no more genuinely scientific than, 
well, the Gospel. But if we consider 21st-century Economics as a science, then 
we should look for self-criticism, and criticism of “classical” economic 
theories, within the profession, as symptomatic of the science being genuine in 
that Peircean sense. And that is not hard to find if we do look. To give the 
one example I’m most familiar with, Kate Raworth in Doughnut Economics gives a 
critique of the “dismal science” which is not much different from (though more 
specific than) yours or Peirce’s. And she presents an alternative economics 
which is much more consistent with current ecological sciences (and, I might 
add, with social justice).

If science in general is so congenial to the political powers that currently be 
in the U.S., why are they so eager to muzzle scientists, take down climate 
change websites, etc.?

Gary f.

 

} What is now proved was once only imagined. [Blake] {

 <http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway

 

From: Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> 
Sent: 5-Mar-18 16:01
To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," 
was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

 

Dear Gary R. 

You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a 
problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by “the world’s 
power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say, “Peirce himself almost 
certainly did find the essential “wicked problems” to be a consequence of the 
political-economic system, not science itself.” I disagree. Peirce actually did 
severly criticise the science of political economy itself as a philosophy of 
greed: 

“The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we all begin to 
review its doings and to think what character it is destined to bear as 
compared with other centuries in the minds of future historians. It will be 
called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political economy has more direct 
relations with all the branches of its activity than has any other science. 
Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too. It is this: 
Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest prices, the fairest 
contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the dealings between men, and 
leads to the summum bonum, food in plenty and perfect comfort. Food for whom? 
Why, for the greedy master of intelligence. I do not mean to say that this is 
one of the legitimate conclusions of political economy, the scientific 
character of which I fully acknowledge. But the study of doctrines, themselves 
true, will often temporarily encourage generalizations extremely false, as the 
study of physics has encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the 
great attention paid to economical questions during our century has induced an 
exaggeration of the beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate results 
of sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which comes unwittingly to 
this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation of the human race and in 
the evolution of the universe.” 6.290: 

 

Peirce was criticizing the science of political economy of his time 
as reaching what Peirce held to be a false generalization. But it was the 
science itself that held this false generalization, not simply outsiders. And 
Peirce’s criticism extended to Darwin’s scientific theory of natural selection: 

 

“The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends politico-economical 
views of progress to the entire realm of animal and vegetable life. The vast 
majority of our contemporary naturalists hold the opinion that the true cause 
of those exquisite and marvelous adaptations of nature for which, when I was a 
boy, men used to extol the divine wisdom, is that creatures are so crowded 
together that those of them that happen to have the slightest advantage force 
those less pushing into situations unfavorable to multiplication or even kill 
them before they reach the age of reproduction. Among animals, the mere 
mechanical individualism is vastly re-enforced as a power making for good by 
the animal's ruthless greed. As Darwin puts it on his title-page, it is the 
struggle for existence; and he should have added for his motto: Every 
individual for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost!” 6.293

Peirce did not reject Darwin’s theory, which he admired, but argued 
that it was a partial view of evolution, to which Peirce added two other 
modalities to produce a three category model. But it was Darwin’s scientific 
theory, not oligarch Andrew Carnegie’s capitalist expropriation of it, that 
Peirce criticized.

My criticism of the overreach of science and technology comes

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Eugene Halton]

Dear Gary R.

You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a
problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by “the
world’s power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say, “Peirce himself
almost certainly did find the essential “wicked problems” to be a
consequence of the political-economic system, not science itself.” I
disagree. Peirce actually did severly criticise the science of political
economy itself as a philosophy of greed:

“The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we all
begin to review its doings and to think what character it is destined to
bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of future historians. It
will be called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political economy has
more direct relations with all the branches of its activity than has any
other science. Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too.
It is this: Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest
prices, the fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the
dealings between men, and leads to the *summum bonum*, food in plenty and
perfect comfort. Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of intelligence.
I do not mean to say that this is one of the legitimate conclusions of
political economy, the scientific character of which I fully acknowledge.
But the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often temporarily
encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study of physics has
encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the great attention
paid to economical questions during our century has induced an exaggeration
of the beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate results of
sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which comes unwittingly to
this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation of the human race and
in the evolution of the universe.” 6.290:



Peirce was criticizing the science of political economy of his
time as reaching what Peirce held to be a false generalization. But it was
the science itself that held this false generalization, not simply
outsiders. And Peirce’s criticism extended to Darwin’s scientific theory of
natural selection:



“The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends
politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal and
vegetable life. The vast majority of our contemporary naturalists hold the
opinion that the true cause of those exquisite and marvelous adaptations of
nature for which, when I was a boy, men used to extol the divine wisdom, is
that creatures are so crowded together that those of them that happen to
have the slightest advantage force those less pushing into situations
unfavorable to multiplication or even kill them before they reach the age
of reproduction. Among animals, the mere mechanical individualism is vastly
re-enforced as a power making for good by the animal's ruthless greed. As
Darwin puts it on his title-page, it is the struggle for existence; and he
should have added for his motto: Every individual for himself, and the
Devil take the hindmost!” 6.293

Peirce did not reject Darwin’s theory, which he admired, but
argued that it was a partial view of evolution, to which Peirce added two
other modalities to produce a three category model. But it was Darwin’s
scientific theory, not oligarch Andrew Carnegie’s capitalist expropriation
of it, that Peirce criticized.

My criticism of the overreach of science and technology comes
from somewhat of a similar place. I’m criticizing the costs of outlooks
which take precise elements of reality as the whole of reality, myopically,
while excluding real elements in ways whose costs and consequences have now
brought the biosphere to the gates of catastrophe. Yes, I would agree that
Peirce offers a much broader understanding of science, but that does not
excuse the ways in which science and technology have been willing perps in
unsustainability as well.

Gene H

PS Dear Edwina, I did not address fossil fuels, perhaps you were responding
to Gary R’s discussion of fossil fuels. But I would say that there, as in
any technology, it is not simply a question about human comfort, but rather
the question of sustainable limits: not simply for human comfort, but for a
longer “seven generations” outlook inclusive of the community of life.




On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Gene, list,
>
> You concluded:
>
> EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
> deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
> and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
> admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and
> technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world
> with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and
> technology must be 

Aw: Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Helmut Raulien]

 

List,

I would distinguish between science, technology, and technology application. I think, most of what might be called dataism, big data, smart this and smart that, is merely technology and its application.

 

I guess there are up- and downsides. Blockchain technology may be very helpful for establishing better methods of fair trade, and to bypass banks and middle/wo/men.

 

About the strong and many downsides of dataism I recommend reading Byung Chul Han and Jaron Lanier.

I just have read a short sci-fi- novel by E.M. Forster: "The Machine Stops", 1909. On the book´s back  is a recommendation by Jaron Lanier: I try to translate the from English into German translated text back into English:

 

"The novel The Machine Stops, published 1909- so centuries before there were the first computers- presumably is the earliest, and probably still today the most striking description of the internet. How E.M. Forster has done this, remains a secret."

 

Best, Helmut


 03. März 2018 um 23:52 Uhr
 "Gary Richmond" 
 



Gene, list,

 

You concluded: 

 



EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and technology must be critically confronted as part of the problem. 



 

I think we may disagree mainly in terms of what we have been emphasizing. 

 

I certainly agree with you that greed, power, and what you call "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals" are threats to our very existence on the earth, but I locate these more within the political-economic 'system' (as I believe Peirce did), while you apparently locate them within the 'system' of "actually existing science and technology." Despite your seeing "admirable individuals" within the scientific-technological 'system', you maintain that greed, power, and "deus-ex-machina goals" are "essential features" of that system. I disagree. 

 

Take climate change, for example. A multi-authored 2016 paper based on a number of independent studies found a 97% consensus that humans are causing global warming. This is entirely consistent with other surveys and studies that I know of. See: Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science(PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 80 (3): 439–455. 

 

In my view the global climate change deniers are not for the most part scientists, but greedy and unethical global corporate magnates and greedy and unethical politicians, typically in cahoots with each other to support policies which, for example, greatly benefit "Big Oil" to the detriment of the development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind, water, etc.) The power brokers use (and even employ and pay) the 3% of scientists who deny human caused global warming in service to their greed, power, and "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals."

 

But, again, there are counter-arguments to my view of science and scientists, many of which you employ in your books. Still, I remain unconvinced that it is science that is the essential problem, but rather the misuse of science and technology by the world's power players. That they seemingly hold all (or most) of the strings isn't very promising for our future on the Earth. Whether "many Peirceans" hold this view of science, I have no idea. But some do, and Peirce himself almost certainly did find the essential "wicked problems" to be a consequence of the political-economic system, not science itself. In what I see to be his view, science is not, as you seem to imply, some "blue sky" ideal. Rather science and technology can be seen as part of our human destiny, part of what we humans ought to be doing, part of our aspiration to know the world, ourselves, and the cosmos better. How unfortunate that corporate and political power elites have virtually kidnapped the potential for humane good of science in the interest of their own greed. And how unfortunate that so few can experience Nature in the direct way that even Peirce and Whitman and the generation were still able to. How amazing it has been for me when, far away from my beloved NYC, say in northern Michigan or central Colorado, I've looked up to the sky and been able to see myriad stars!

 

As an aside notice that the "powers that be," at least in the US, have also undermined public education, stripping many, perhaps most school systems of opportunities for aesthetic education (the arts, music, etc.) and critical thinking (for example, the GOP platform in Texas a few years ago had a clause which stipulated that critical thinking not be taught in the schools), while what 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Stephen C. Rose]

Would a one who thinks universally not be a world spectator who agrees with
Pinker and others that things actually are improving? No conspiracy there.
Peirce might have been in the camp derisively called globalist if it aimed
at a world where greed is reined in and agapaic things are not scoffed at.


amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> "world spectator"?
>
> I've never heard such a thing. That sounds crazy.
> Does anyone else know what it is and why it would even belongs on this
> list?
>
> Best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Jerry,
>>
>> Since you message is posted both to the list and to me and seemingly in
>> response to my last post, I'd like to know what in the world this
>> "conspiracy" you allude to is? And what do you mean by "world spectator"?
>> You haven't contextualize your strange remarks whatsoever, so I have no
>> idea what this has to do with anything, let alone my last post. On the face
>> of it, it isn't Peirce-related at all. Conspiracy? Really? World-spectator?
>> Really?
>>
>> Certainly "conspiracy" sounds offensive and, as such, has no place on the
>> list.
>>
>> Gary Richmond (writing also as list moderator)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gary Richmond*
>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>> *Communication Studies*
>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds like conspiracy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely there is a better story to be told..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "world spectator." It is he who decides, by having an idea of the whole,
>>> whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jerry R
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Gary Richmond 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Gene, list,

 You concluded:

 EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
 deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
 and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
 admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and
 technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world
 with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and
 technology must be critically confronted as part of the problem.


 I think we may disagree mainly in terms of what we have been
 emphasizing.

 I certainly agree with you that greed, power, and what you call
 "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals" are threats to our
 very existence on the earth, but I locate these *more* within the
 political-economic 'system' (as I believe Peirce did), while you apparently
 locate them within the 'system' of "actually existing science and
 technology." Despite your seeing "admirable individuals" within the
 scientific-technological 'system', you maintain that greed, power, and
 "deus-ex-machina goals" are "*essential *features" of that system. I
 disagree.

 Take climate change, for example. A multi-authored 2016 paper based on
 a number of independent studies found a 97% consensus that humans are
 causing global warming. This is entirely consistent with other surveys and
 studies that I know of. See: Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch
  (1999). "Climate
 Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science
 
 (PDF). *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society*. *80* (3):
 439–455.

 In my view the global climate change deniers are *not* for the most
 part scientists, but greedy and unethical global corporate magnates and
 greedy and unethical politicians, typically in cahoots with each other to
 support policies which, for example, greatly benefit "Big Oil" to the
 detriment of the development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind,
 water, etc.) The power brokers use (and even employ and pay) the 3% of
 scientists who deny human caused global warming in service to their greed,
 power, and "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals."

 But, again, there are counter-arguments to my view of science and
 scientists, many of which you employ in your books. Still, I remain
 unconvinced that it is science that is the essential problem, but rather
 the *misuse* of science and technology by the world's power players.
 That they seemingly hold all (or most) of the strings isn't very promising
 for our future on the Earth. Whether "many Peirceans" hold this view of
 science, I have no idea. 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Jerry Rhee]

"world spectator"?

I've never heard such a thing. That sounds crazy.
Does anyone else know what it is and why it would even belongs on this list?

Best,
Jerry R

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Jerry,
>
> Since you message is posted both to the list and to me and seemingly in
> response to my last post, I'd like to know what in the world this
> "conspiracy" you allude to is? And what do you mean by "world spectator"?
> You haven't contextualize your strange remarks whatsoever, so I have no
> idea what this has to do with anything, let alone my last post. On the face
> of it, it isn't Peirce-related at all. Conspiracy? Really? World-spectator?
> Really?
>
> Certainly "conspiracy" sounds offensive and, as such, has no place on the
> list.
>
> Gary Richmond (writing also as list moderator)
>
>
>
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>>
>>
>> That sounds like conspiracy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Surely there is a better story to be told..
>>
>>
>>
>> "world spectator." It is he who decides, by having an idea of the whole,
>> whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jerry R
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Gary Richmond 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gene, list,
>>>
>>> You concluded:
>>>
>>> EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
>>> deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
>>> and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
>>> admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and
>>> technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world
>>> with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and
>>> technology must be critically confronted as part of the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we may disagree mainly in terms of what we have been
>>> emphasizing.
>>>
>>> I certainly agree with you that greed, power, and what you call
>>> "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals" are threats to our
>>> very existence on the earth, but I locate these *more* within the
>>> political-economic 'system' (as I believe Peirce did), while you apparently
>>> locate them within the 'system' of "actually existing science and
>>> technology." Despite your seeing "admirable individuals" within the
>>> scientific-technological 'system', you maintain that greed, power, and
>>> "deus-ex-machina goals" are "*essential *features" of that system. I
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> Take climate change, for example. A multi-authored 2016 paper based on a
>>> number of independent studies found a 97% consensus that humans are causing
>>> global warming. This is entirely consistent with other surveys and studies
>>> that I know of. See: Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch
>>>  (1999). "Climate
>>> Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science
>>> 
>>> (PDF). *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society*. *80* (3):
>>> 439–455.
>>>
>>> In my view the global climate change deniers are *not* for the most
>>> part scientists, but greedy and unethical global corporate magnates and
>>> greedy and unethical politicians, typically in cahoots with each other to
>>> support policies which, for example, greatly benefit "Big Oil" to the
>>> detriment of the development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind,
>>> water, etc.) The power brokers use (and even employ and pay) the 3% of
>>> scientists who deny human caused global warming in service to their greed,
>>> power, and "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals."
>>>
>>> But, again, there are counter-arguments to my view of science and
>>> scientists, many of which you employ in your books. Still, I remain
>>> unconvinced that it is science that is the essential problem, but rather
>>> the *misuse* of science and technology by the world's power players.
>>> That they seemingly hold all (or most) of the strings isn't very promising
>>> for our future on the Earth. Whether "many Peirceans" hold this view of
>>> science, I have no idea. But some do, and Peirce himself almost certainly
>>> did find the essential "wicked problems" to be a consequence of the
>>> political-economic system, not science itself. In what I see to be his
>>> view, science is not, as you seem to imply, some "blue sky" ideal. Rather
>>> science and technology can be seen as part of our human destiny, part of
>>> what we humans *ought* to be doing, part of our aspiration to know the
>>> world, ourselves, and the cosmos better. How unfortunate that corporate and
>>> political power elites 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Jerry,

Since you message is posted both to the list and to me and seemingly in
response to my last post, I'd like to know what in the world this
"conspiracy" you allude to is? And what do you mean by "world spectator"?
You haven't contextualize your strange remarks whatsoever, so I have no
idea what this has to do with anything, let alone my last post. On the face
of it, it isn't Peirce-related at all. Conspiracy? Really? World-spectator?
Really?

Certainly "conspiracy" sounds offensive and, as such, has no place on the
list.

Gary Richmond (writing also as list moderator)




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> Dear list,
>
>
>
> That sounds like conspiracy.
>
>
>
> Surely there is a better story to be told..
>
>
>
> "world spectator." It is he who decides, by having an idea of the whole,
> whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jerry R
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Gene, list,
>>
>> You concluded:
>>
>> EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
>> deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
>> and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
>> admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and
>> technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world
>> with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and
>> technology must be critically confronted as part of the problem.
>>
>>
>> I think we may disagree mainly in terms of what we have been emphasizing.
>>
>> I certainly agree with you that greed, power, and what you call
>> "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals" are threats to our
>> very existence on the earth, but I locate these *more* within the
>> political-economic 'system' (as I believe Peirce did), while you apparently
>> locate them within the 'system' of "actually existing science and
>> technology." Despite your seeing "admirable individuals" within the
>> scientific-technological 'system', you maintain that greed, power, and
>> "deus-ex-machina goals" are "*essential *features" of that system. I
>> disagree.
>>
>> Take climate change, for example. A multi-authored 2016 paper based on a
>> number of independent studies found a 97% consensus that humans are causing
>> global warming. This is entirely consistent with other surveys and studies
>> that I know of. See: Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch
>>  (1999). "Climate
>> Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science
>> 
>> (PDF). *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society*. *80* (3):
>> 439–455.
>>
>> In my view the global climate change deniers are *not* for the most part
>> scientists, but greedy and unethical global corporate magnates and greedy
>> and unethical politicians, typically in cahoots with each other to support
>> policies which, for example, greatly benefit "Big Oil" to the detriment of
>> the development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind, water, etc.)
>> The power brokers use (and even employ and pay) the 3% of scientists who
>> deny human caused global warming in service to their greed, power, and
>> "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals."
>>
>> But, again, there are counter-arguments to my view of science and
>> scientists, many of which you employ in your books. Still, I remain
>> unconvinced that it is science that is the essential problem, but rather
>> the *misuse* of science and technology by the world's power players.
>> That they seemingly hold all (or most) of the strings isn't very promising
>> for our future on the Earth. Whether "many Peirceans" hold this view of
>> science, I have no idea. But some do, and Peirce himself almost certainly
>> did find the essential "wicked problems" to be a consequence of the
>> political-economic system, not science itself. In what I see to be his
>> view, science is not, as you seem to imply, some "blue sky" ideal. Rather
>> science and technology can be seen as part of our human destiny, part of
>> what we humans *ought* to be doing, part of our aspiration to know the
>> world, ourselves, and the cosmos better. How unfortunate that corporate and
>> political power elites have virtually kidnapped the potential for humane
>> good of science in the interest of their own greed. And how unfortunate
>> that so few can experience Nature in the direct way that even Peirce and
>> Whitman and the generation were still able to. How amazing it has been for
>> me when, far away from my beloved NYC, say in northern Michigan or central
>> Colorado, I've 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



That sounds like conspiracy.



Surely there is a better story to be told..



"world spectator." It is he who decides, by having an idea of the whole,
whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made.



Best,

Jerry R




On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Gene, list,
>
> You concluded:
>
> EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
> deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
> and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
> admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and
> technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world
> with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and
> technology must be critically confronted as part of the problem.
>
>
> I think we may disagree mainly in terms of what we have been emphasizing.
>
> I certainly agree with you that greed, power, and what you call
> "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals" are threats to our
> very existence on the earth, but I locate these *more* within the
> political-economic 'system' (as I believe Peirce did), while you apparently
> locate them within the 'system' of "actually existing science and
> technology." Despite your seeing "admirable individuals" within the
> scientific-technological 'system', you maintain that greed, power, and
> "deus-ex-machina goals" are "*essential *features" of that system. I
> disagree.
>
> Take climate change, for example. A multi-authored 2016 paper based on a
> number of independent studies found a 97% consensus that humans are causing
> global warming. This is entirely consistent with other surveys and studies
> that I know of. See: Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch
>  (1999). "Climate Science:
> An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science
> 
> (PDF). *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society*. *80* (3):
> 439–455.
>
> In my view the global climate change deniers are *not* for the most part
> scientists, but greedy and unethical global corporate magnates and greedy
> and unethical politicians, typically in cahoots with each other to support
> policies which, for example, greatly benefit "Big Oil" to the detriment of
> the development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind, water, etc.)
> The power brokers use (and even employ and pay) the 3% of scientists who
> deny human caused global warming in service to their greed, power, and
> "crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals."
>
> But, again, there are counter-arguments to my view of science and
> scientists, many of which you employ in your books. Still, I remain
> unconvinced that it is science that is the essential problem, but rather
> the *misuse* of science and technology by the world's power players. That
> they seemingly hold all (or most) of the strings isn't very promising for
> our future on the Earth. Whether "many Peirceans" hold this view of
> science, I have no idea. But some do, and Peirce himself almost certainly
> did find the essential "wicked problems" to be a consequence of the
> political-economic system, not science itself. In what I see to be his
> view, science is not, as you seem to imply, some "blue sky" ideal. Rather
> science and technology can be seen as part of our human destiny, part of
> what we humans *ought* to be doing, part of our aspiration to know the
> world, ourselves, and the cosmos better. How unfortunate that corporate and
> political power elites have virtually kidnapped the potential for humane
> good of science in the interest of their own greed. And how unfortunate
> that so few can experience Nature in the direct way that even Peirce and
> Whitman and the generation were still able to. How amazing it has been for
> me when, far away from my beloved NYC, say in northern Michigan or central
> Colorado, I've looked up to the sky and been able to see myriad stars!
>
> As an aside notice that the "powers that be," at least in the US, have
> also undermined public education, stripping many, perhaps most school
> systems of opportunities for aesthetic education (the arts, music, etc.)
> and critical thinking (for example, the GOP platform in Texas a few years
> ago had a clause which stipulated that critical thinking *not* be taught
> in the schools), while what one might call an ethical education (which, in
> my view, builds upon aesthetic education and is facilitated by reflection
> and discussion around works of art, literature, philosophy--including
> philosophy of science--and, in my opinion, comparative religion, including
> in the US, First Nation spirituality) is almost entirely missing from
> American public education (itself under siege under the present
> administration).
>
> In addition, some of the most 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Gene, list,

You concluded:

EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
admirable individuals within it. That is why actually existing science and
technology represent possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world
with humans still a part of it, and why actually existing science and
technology must be critically confronted as part of the problem.


I think we may disagree mainly in terms of what we have been emphasizing.

I certainly agree with you that greed, power, and what you call
"crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals" are threats to our
very existence on the earth, but I locate these *more* within the
political-economic 'system' (as I believe Peirce did), while you apparently
locate them within the 'system' of "actually existing science and
technology." Despite your seeing "admirable individuals" within the
scientific-technological 'system', you maintain that greed, power, and
"deus-ex-machina goals" are "*essential *features" of that system. I
disagree.

Take climate change, for example. A multi-authored 2016 paper based on a
number of independent studies found a 97% consensus that humans are causing
global warming. This is entirely consistent with other surveys and studies
that I know of. See: Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch
 (1999). "Climate Science:
An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science

(PDF). *Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society*. *80* (3):
439–455.

In my view the global climate change deniers are *not* for the most part
scientists, but greedy and unethical global corporate magnates and greedy
and unethical politicians, typically in cahoots with each other to support
policies which, for example, greatly benefit "Big Oil" to the detriment of
the development of sustainable energy sources (solar, wind, water, etc.)
The power brokers use (and even employ and pay) the 3% of scientists who
deny human caused global warming in service to their greed, power, and
"crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals."

But, again, there are counter-arguments to my view of science and
scientists, many of which you employ in your books. Still, I remain
unconvinced that it is science that is the essential problem, but rather
the *misuse* of science and technology by the world's power players. That
they seemingly hold all (or most) of the strings isn't very promising for
our future on the Earth. Whether "many Peirceans" hold this view of
science, I have no idea. But some do, and Peirce himself almost certainly
did find the essential "wicked problems" to be a consequence of the
political-economic system, not science itself. In what I see to be his
view, science is not, as you seem to imply, some "blue sky" ideal. Rather
science and technology can be seen as part of our human destiny, part of
what we humans *ought* to be doing, part of our aspiration to know the
world, ourselves, and the cosmos better. How unfortunate that corporate and
political power elites have virtually kidnapped the potential for humane
good of science in the interest of their own greed. And how unfortunate
that so few can experience Nature in the direct way that even Peirce and
Whitman and the generation were still able to. How amazing it has been for
me when, far away from my beloved NYC, say in northern Michigan or central
Colorado, I've looked up to the sky and been able to see myriad stars!

As an aside notice that the "powers that be," at least in the US, have also
undermined public education, stripping many, perhaps most school systems of
opportunities for aesthetic education (the arts, music, etc.) and critical
thinking (for example, the GOP platform in Texas a few years ago had a
clause which stipulated that critical thinking *not* be taught in the
schools), while what one might call an ethical education (which, in my
view, builds upon aesthetic education and is facilitated by reflection and
discussion around works of art, literature, philosophy--including
philosophy of science--and, in my opinion, comparative religion, including
in the US, First Nation spirituality) is almost entirely missing from
American public education (itself under siege under the present
administration).

In addition, some of the most potent media in the USA are owned and
operated by those in league with the political-economic powers mentioned
above, so that much of the population seems, well, almost brain-washed by
the propaganda and "alternative facts" thrown at them every day such that
they, for example, often vote against their own best interests. And all
this too is, I believe, anticipated in a close reading of certain of
Peirce's writings, including those on education, because he saw it *well on
its 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Eugene Halton]

Dear Gary R.,
 Yes, thanks, you understood my critique and likely difference of
opinion.
 From my point of view your response, like that of many Peirceans, and
sci-tech proponents more generally, takes an ideal of what science and
technology should be as an excuse to deny their actual complicity in the
delusion of limitless development of human-all-too-human purposes that has
brought us to the likelihood of an emerging collapse. The greed, power, and
especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals are not
simply external to actually existing science and technology, but are
essential features of the system, despite the many admirable individuals
within it. That is why actually existing science and technology represent
possibly the greatest threat to a sustainable world with humans still a
part of it, and why actually existing science and technology must be
critically confronted as part of the problem.
  Gene


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Gene, list,
>
> Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive
> results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be
> applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)"
>
> Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,
> overpopulated earth.
>  Such is man's glory!
>
>
> You know, of course, that I agree with the underlying sensibility of your
> comment. All​
> ​
> ​ I meant to say in the snippet you quoted, by writing "*positive*
> results of scientific inquiry," was that there were definite, concrete,
> incontrovertible results of such inquiry, not that they were necessarily
> well applied "to matters of vital importance." All too often they haven't
> been, or there have been unforeseen negative, even tragic results of their
> application (think gun powder, fossil fuels, etc.)
>
> However, in my opinion, the principal cause of "the dying, overpopulated
> earth" is precisely the *misuse* of the fruits of science by greedy,
> power-crazed, unethical, cruel, and thoughtless men and institutions. Yet,
> can I say that some of the advances, say, in my example of medicine,
> haven't been of value? Well, surely not to many or even most (but, again,
> that's because of greed, etc.)
>
> Still, I'm glad to have been able to in recent years have had both hips
> replaced, cataract surgery on both eyes allowing me to, for example, read
> books again after a couple of years of not being able to do so. And, again,
> there are many other technologies--such as those associated with
> computation--which, again, can be well or badly used. But the science and
> technology are, in my estimation, at least *less* the root cause than the
> greed and power grabbing. From reading your books I have a sense that you
> wouldn't agree with this last stated opinion.
>
> In short, in my estimation the "wicked problems" of the world are less a
> matter of the advance of science (theory) and its fruits, such as
> technology, and more the lack of humane and ethical conduct (practice) by
> too many men (being yet the tiniest fraction of a percentage of the world
> population) and the corrupt institutions they've put in place and over
> which they have almost unlimited control.
> Best,
> Gary
>  ​
>

-
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: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Stephen. list,

SR: I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of
reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your
reading of the lectures is in question.


While the 1898 Cambridge lecture series--which Kirsti explicitly referred
to--doesn't express his "despair," there is little doubt that Peirce in
such places as the quotation your offered, which is *not* from this lecture
series but from the essay "Evolutionary Love," did see the Gospel of Greed
as having supplanted the Gospel of Love in American political economy.

As for my own thoughts on this supplanting, see my response today to Gene
Halton's post.

I am happy to hear that you don't think that my reading of the *Reasoning
and the Logic of Thing*s isn't in question, but we'll see about that since
Kirsti referenced *that* lecture series and not "Evolutionary Love."

Best,

Gary R




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:25 PM, Stephen C. Rose  wrote:

> I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of
> reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your
> reading of the lectures is in question. It would be fairly easy to go
> through CP and pick and choose a small quilt of expressions that amount to
> a sort of despair about American culture or a critique of her theology--
> greed and such.
> *"Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too. It is this:
> Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest prices, the
> fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the dealings between
> men, and leads to the summum bonum, food in plenty and perfect comfort.
> Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of intelligence. I do not mean to
> say that this is one of the legitimate conclusions of political economy,
> the scientific character of which I fully acknowledge. But the study of
> doctrines, themselves true, will often temporarily encourage
> generalizations extremely false, as the study of physics has encouraged
> necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the great attention paid to
> economical questions during our century has induced an exaggeration of the
> beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate results of sentiment,
> until there has resulted a philosophy which comes unwittingly to this, that
> greed is the great agent in the elevation of the human race and in the
> evolution of the universe.* " 6.290
>
> On a more encouraging note, "*In general, God is perpetually creating us,
> that is developing our real manhood, our spiritual reality. Like a good
> teacher, He is engaged in detaching us from a False dependence upon Him."
> 6.507*
>
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Gary Richmond 
> wrote:
>
>> Kirsti, list,
>>
>> You'll have to give me and the list reasons for your saying this:
>>
>> KS: I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his
>> true views on science and vitally important matters.
>>
>> ​First, I have no idea what you mean by Peirce's "despair." I don't see
>> any "despair" expressed in the lecture I commented on nor in my
>> interpretation of that lecture. In any event, I fully stand by my analysis
>> and feel confident that I could support it by adding--to those I've already
>> offered--dozens of quotes not only from "Reason and the Logic of Things,"
>> but from many sources.
>>
>> But just limiting myself to the lectures, I can say that I've read them
>> so often that, while I couldn't say that I've memorized them as Peirce
>> claimed he'd memorized Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, yet I know the
>> structure and content of each lecture. On that basis I'd say that perhaps
>> the principal theme if not the gist of the first is not an expression of
>> despair at all, but simply that *one ought not mix theory and practice* (he
>> explicitly argues against this mixing in the lecture). There's no despair
>> whatsoever in that methodological idea. Indeed, he offers an extremely
>> positive estimate of both within their own provinces.
>>
>> So, Kirsti, if you'd like to challenge my view on this, you'll have to
>> offer some evidence and argumentation. Otherwise it's mere vapid criticism
>> with no basis in fact.
>>
>> KB: ​The issue should be rethougth, I believe
>>
>> I'd be eager to have you help me rethink it on the list. While at the
>> moment I have confidence that my view is supported not only by Peirce's
>> discussion in the 1898 lectures, but in *many* other places in his work,
>> as always, and in the spirit of Peirce, I would be delighted to have you
>> prove me wrong. Then I'd have learned something I hadn't known and
>> corrected an error in my thinking. Peirce called this approach 'Critical
>> Commonsensism', and commented that his Pragmatism could be 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Gene, list,

Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive
results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be
applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)"

Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,
overpopulated earth.
 Such is man's glory!


You know, of course, that I agree with the underlying sensibility of your
comment. All​
​
​ I meant to say in the snippet you quoted, by writing "*positive* results
of scientific inquiry," was that there were definite, concrete,
incontrovertible results of such inquiry, not that they were necessarily
well applied "to matters of vital importance." All too often they haven't
been, or there have been unforeseen negative, even tragic results of their
application (think gun powder, fossil fuels, etc.)

However, in my opinion, the principal cause of "the dying, overpopulated
earth" is precisely the *misuse* of the fruits of science by greedy,
power-crazed, unethical, cruel, and thoughtless men and institutions. Yet,
can I say that some of the advances, say, in my example of medicine,
haven't been of value? Well, surely not to many or even most (but, again,
that's because of greed, etc.)

Still, I'm glad to have been able to in recent years have had both hips
replaced, cataract surgery on both eyes allowing me to, for example, read
books again after a couple of years of not being able to do so. And, again,
there are many other technologies--such as those associated with
computation--which, again, can be well or badly used. But the science and
technology are, in my estimation, at least *less* the root cause than the
greed and power grabbing. From reading your books I have a sense that you
wouldn't agree with this last stated opinion.

In short, in my estimation the "wicked problems" of the world are less a
matter of the advance of science (theory) and its fruits, such as
technology, and more the lack of humane and ethical conduct (practice) by
too many men (being yet the tiniest fraction of a percentage of the world
population) and the corrupt institutions they've put in place and over
which they have almost unlimited control.

Best,

Gary
 ​



*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Eugene Halton 
wrote:

> Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive
> results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be
> applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)"
>
> Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,
> overpopulated earth.
>  Such is man's glory!
>  Gene H
>
>
>
> -
> 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: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Stephen C. Rose]

I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of
reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your
reading of the lectures is in question. It would be fairly easy to go
through CP and pick and choose a small quilt of expressions that amount to
a sort of despair about American culture or a critique of her theology--
greed and such.
*"Well, political economy has its formula of redemption, too. It is this:
Intelligence in the service of greed ensures the justest prices, the
fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of all the dealings between
men, and leads to the summum bonum, food in plenty and perfect comfort.
Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of intelligence. I do not mean to
say that this is one of the legitimate conclusions of political economy,
the scientific character of which I fully acknowledge. But the study of
doctrines, themselves true, will often temporarily encourage
generalizations extremely false, as the study of physics has encouraged
necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the great attention paid to
economical questions during our century has induced an exaggeration of the
beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate results of sentiment,
until there has resulted a philosophy which comes unwittingly to this, that
greed is the great agent in the elevation of the human race and in the
evolution of the universe.* " 6.290

On a more encouraging note, "*In general, God is perpetually creating us,
that is developing our real manhood, our spiritual reality. Like a good
teacher, He is engaged in detaching us from a False dependence upon Him."
6.507*


amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Kirsti, list,
>
> You'll have to give me and the list reasons for your saying this:
>
> KS: I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his
> true views on science and vitally important matters.
>
> ​First, I have no idea what you mean by Peirce's "despair." I don't see
> any "despair" expressed in the lecture I commented on nor in my
> interpretation of that lecture. In any event, I fully stand by my analysis
> and feel confident that I could support it by adding--to those I've already
> offered--dozens of quotes not only from "Reason and the Logic of Things,"
> but from many sources.
>
> But just limiting myself to the lectures, I can say that I've read them so
> often that, while I couldn't say that I've memorized them as Peirce claimed
> he'd memorized Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, yet I know the structure and
> content of each lecture. On that basis I'd say that perhaps the principal
> theme if not the gist of the first is not an expression of despair at all,
> but simply that *one ought not mix theory and practice* (he explicitly
> argues against this mixing in the lecture). There's no despair whatsoever
> in that methodological idea. Indeed, he offers an extremely positive
> estimate of both within their own provinces.
>
> So, Kirsti, if you'd like to challenge my view on this, you'll have to
> offer some evidence and argumentation. Otherwise it's mere vapid criticism
> with no basis in fact.
>
> KB: ​The issue should be rethougth, I believe
>
> I'd be eager to have you help me rethink it on the list. While at the
> moment I have confidence that my view is supported not only by Peirce's
> discussion in the 1898 lectures, but in *many* other places in his work,
> as always, and in the spirit of Peirce, I would be delighted to have you
> prove me wrong. Then I'd have learned something I hadn't known and
> corrected an error in my thinking. Peirce called this approach 'Critical
> Commonsensism', and commented that his Pragmatism could be thought of as
> but a development of it.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:11 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Gary R.
>>
>> I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
>> views on science and vitally important matters.
>>
>> The issue should be rethougth, I believe.
>>
>> Kirsti
>>
>> Gary Richmond kirjoitti 2.3.2018 22:41:
>>
>>> Stephen quoted Peirce:
>>>
>>> _We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the
 facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human
 reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and
 deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally
 admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have
 tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory! __Peirce: CP 1.627
 _

>>>
>>> In point of fact this quote is not from CP 1.627 but .626.
>>>
>>> But first consider that the method of scientific inquiry is not that
>>> of a jury, now is it?
>>>
>>> Indeed, the 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Kirsti, list,

You'll have to give me and the list reasons for your saying this:

KS: I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
views on science and vitally important matters.

​First, I have no idea what you mean by Peirce's "despair." I don't see any
"despair" expressed in the lecture I commented on nor in my interpretation
of that lecture. In any event, I fully stand by my analysis and feel
confident that I could support it by adding--to those I've already
offered--dozens of quotes not only from "Reason and the Logic of Things,"
but from many sources.

But just limiting myself to the lectures, I can say that I've read them so
often that, while I couldn't say that I've memorized them as Peirce claimed
he'd memorized Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, yet I know the structure and
content of each lecture. On that basis I'd say that perhaps the principal
theme if not the gist of the first is not an expression of despair at all,
but simply that *one ought not mix theory and practice* (he explicitly
argues against this mixing in the lecture). There's no despair whatsoever
in that methodological idea. Indeed, he offers an extremely positive
estimate of both within their own provinces.

So, Kirsti, if you'd like to challenge my view on this, you'll have to
offer some evidence and argumentation. Otherwise it's mere vapid criticism
with no basis in fact.

KB: ​The issue should be rethougth, I believe

I'd be eager to have you help me rethink it on the list. While at the
moment I have confidence that my view is supported not only by Peirce's
discussion in the 1898 lectures, but in *many* other places in his work, as
always, and in the spirit of Peirce, I would be delighted to have you prove
me wrong. Then I'd have learned something I hadn't known and corrected an
error in my thinking. Peirce called this approach 'Critical Commonsensism',
and commented that his Pragmatism could be thought of as but a development
of it.

Best,

Gary R



*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:11 AM,  wrote:

> Gary R.
>
> I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
> views on science and vitally important matters.
>
> The issue should be rethougth, I believe.
>
> Kirsti
>
> Gary Richmond kirjoitti 2.3.2018 22:41:
>
>> Stephen quoted Peirce:
>>
>> _We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the
>>> facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human
>>> reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and
>>> deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally
>>> admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have
>>> tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory! __Peirce: CP 1.627
>>> _
>>>
>>
>> In point of fact this quote is not from CP 1.627 but .626.
>>
>> But first consider that the method of scientific inquiry is not that
>> of a jury, now is it?
>>
>> Indeed, the quotation exemplifies the reason why I as list moderator
>> ask contributors to contextualize quotations (I usually do this
>> off-list). The quotation above appears in the first lecture of the
>> 1998 lectures published as _Reasoning and the Logic of Things_.
>>
>> When William James first proposed that Peirce give a series of
>> lectures in Cambridge, he suggested in a letter that, rather then
>> speaking on logic and science as he was wont to do, that instead
>> Peirce ought speak on "topics of vital importance" (which phrase
>> appears in 1.622,.623 and variants at .626 and .636). Peirce, of
>> course, chose to speak on what interested him at the time, including
>> logic, inquiry and reasoning, and cosmology.
>>
>> In the first lecture, no doubt in part to explain to James why he
>> hadn't taken his advice for a theme for the lecture series, he begins
>> by arguing that "topics of vital importance" have nothing to do with a
>> "theory of reasoning," which is a principal topic in his lectures. But
>> they _do_ have their place, although not in scientific inquiry: ". . .
>> in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it is very easy
>> to exaggerate the importance of ratiocination" and in such matters
>> Peirce will offer as alternatives 'instinct' and 'the sentiments'. It
>> is this snippet just quoted that introduces the paragraph which
>> concludes the quotation which Stephen offered. However, ". . . in
>> theoretical matters I refuse to allow sentiment any weight whatsoever"
>> (CP 1.634).
>>
>> Science, by which he means here, "pure theoretic knowledge," ". . .
>> has nothing directly to say concerning practical matters" (CP 1.637),
>> and it is best "to leave [cenoscopic] philosophy to follow perfectly
>> untrammeled a scientific method" (CP 1.644).  Thus, once he's
>> concluded this discussion of topics of vital importance being little
>> aided by our vain power 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Stephen C. Rose]

There is ambivalence running through Peirce which is vitiated by an
academic exegetical approach which ignores such passages. It has all sorts
of ramifications including the present political divide between what we
call populism and establishment. Peirce was genuinely not liked by his own
ilk and for good reason. He had their number. Brant picked up on the pathos
of having to live as he did. but if we just deal with the problems related
to words alone there is indeed a fertile field for reevaluation.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:11 AM,  wrote:

> Gary R.
>
> I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
> views on science and vitally important matters.
>
> The issue should be rethougth, I believe.
>
> Kirsti
>
> Gary Richmond kirjoitti 2.3.2018 22:41:
>
>> Stephen quoted Peirce:
>>
>> _We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the
>>> facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human
>>> reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and
>>> deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally
>>> admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have
>>> tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory! __Peirce: CP 1.627
>>> _
>>>
>>
>> In point of fact this quote is not from CP 1.627 but .626.
>>
>> But first consider that the method of scientific inquiry is not that
>> of a jury, now is it?
>>
>> Indeed, the quotation exemplifies the reason why I as list moderator
>> ask contributors to contextualize quotations (I usually do this
>> off-list). The quotation above appears in the first lecture of the
>> 1998 lectures published as _Reasoning and the Logic of Things_.
>>
>> When William James first proposed that Peirce give a series of
>> lectures in Cambridge, he suggested in a letter that, rather then
>> speaking on logic and science as he was wont to do, that instead
>> Peirce ought speak on "topics of vital importance" (which phrase
>> appears in 1.622,.623 and variants at .626 and .636). Peirce, of
>> course, chose to speak on what interested him at the time, including
>> logic, inquiry and reasoning, and cosmology.
>>
>> In the first lecture, no doubt in part to explain to James why he
>> hadn't taken his advice for a theme for the lecture series, he begins
>> by arguing that "topics of vital importance" have nothing to do with a
>> "theory of reasoning," which is a principal topic in his lectures. But
>> they _do_ have their place, although not in scientific inquiry: ". . .
>> in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it is very easy
>> to exaggerate the importance of ratiocination" and in such matters
>> Peirce will offer as alternatives 'instinct' and 'the sentiments'. It
>> is this snippet just quoted that introduces the paragraph which
>> concludes the quotation which Stephen offered. However, ". . . in
>> theoretical matters I refuse to allow sentiment any weight whatsoever"
>> (CP 1.634).
>>
>> Science, by which he means here, "pure theoretic knowledge," ". . .
>> has nothing directly to say concerning practical matters" (CP 1.637),
>> and it is best "to leave [cenoscopic] philosophy to follow perfectly
>> untrammeled a scientific method" (CP 1.644).  Thus, once he's
>> concluded this discussion of topics of vital importance being little
>> aided by our vain power of reason (witness the jury illustration!), he
>> moves on in the lectures to follow to discussions of topics of
>> scientific importance.
>>
>> Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive results
>> of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be applied
>> to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>> GARY RICHMOND
>> PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING
>> COMMUNICATION STUDIES
>> LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
>> 718 482-5690
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Stephen C. Rose 
>> wrote:
>>
>> _We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the
>>> facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human
>>> reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and
>>> deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally
>>> admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have
>>> tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory!_
>>>
>>> _Peirce: CP 1.627 Cross-Ref:††_
>>>
>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1]
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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 [2] .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1] 

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Eugene Halton]

Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive
results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be
applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)"

Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,
overpopulated earth.
 Such is man's glory!
 Gene H

-
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: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Stephen C. Rose]

Sorry. I should have said practical reasoning. It seemed obvious enough. I
shall write context twenty times, :) Here is the entire section with the
proper designation.

*   626. But in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it
is very easy to exaggerate the importance of ratiocination. Man is so vain
of his power of reason! It seems impossible for him to see himself in this
respect, as he himself would see himself if he could duplicate himself and
observe himself with a critical eye. Those whom we are so fond of referring
to as the "lower animals" reason very little. Now I beg you to observe that
those beings very rarely commit a mistake, while we ---! We employ twelve
good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts before them with
the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason" presides over the
presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they come to a
unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties to the
suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's
glory!*


*It would appear that our problems lie in the multiplicity of choices.*

-
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 .

Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Gary Richmond]

Stephen quoted Peirce:

*We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts
before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason"
presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they
come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties
to the suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is
man's glory! **Peirce: CP 1.627 *


In point of fact this quote is not from CP 1.627 but .626.

But first consider that the method of scientific inquiry is not that of a
jury, now is it?

Indeed, the quotation exemplifies the reason why I as list moderator ask
contributors to contextualize quotations (I usually do this off-list). The
quotation above appears in the first lecture of the 1998 lectures published
as *Reasoning and the Logic of Things*.

When William James first proposed that Peirce give a series of lectures in
Cambridge, he suggested in a letter that, rather then speaking on logic and
science as he was wont to do, that instead Peirce ought speak on "topics of
vital importance" (which phrase appears in 1.622,.623 and variants at .626
and .636). Peirce, of course, chose to speak on what interested him at the
time, including logic, inquiry and reasoning, and cosmology.

In the first lecture, no doubt in part to explain to James why he hadn't
taken his advice for a theme for the lecture series, he begins by arguing
that "topics of vital importance" have nothing to do with a "theory of
reasoning," which is a principal topic in his lectures. But they *do* have
their place, although not in scientific inquiry: ". . . in practical
affairs, in matters of vital importance, it is very easy to exaggerate the
importance of ratiocination" and in such matters Peirce will offer as
alternatives 'instinct' and 'the sentiments'. It is this snippet just
quoted that introduces the paragraph which concludes the quotation which
Stephen offered. However, ". . . in theoretical matters I refuse to allow
sentiment any weight whatsoever" (CP 1.634).

Science, by which he means here, "pure theoretic knowledge," ". . . has
nothing directly to say concerning practical matters" (CP 1.637), and it is
best "to leave [cenoscopic] philosophy to follow perfectly untrammeled a
scientific method" (CP 1.644).  Thus, once he's concluded this discussion
of topics of vital importance being little aided by our vain power of
reason (witness the jury illustration!), he moves on in the lectures to
follow to discussions of topics of scientific importance.

Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive results of
scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be applied to
matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)

Best,

Gary R










Best,

Gary R




*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*718 482-5690*

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Stephen C. Rose  wrote:

> *We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts
> before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason"
> presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they
> come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties
> to the suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is
> man's glory!*
>
> *Peirce: CP 1.627 Cross-Ref:††*
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
>
> -
> 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 .

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

[Helmut Raulien]

Stephen, List,

I think, reason is not man-made, and glory is not based on reason. Maybe this is what Peirce wanted to say, or maybe he just was feeling depressed and misanthropic when he wrote it, that is my two best guesses. Best, Helmut

 

02. März 2018 um 20:29 Uhr
Von: "Stephen C. Rose" 
 



We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory!

Peirce: CP 1.627 Cross-Ref:††
 









amazon.com/author/stephenrose









- 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] A footnote on reason

[Stephen C. Rose]

*We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts
before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason"
presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they
come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties
to the suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is
man's glory!*

*Peirce: CP 1.627 Cross-Ref:††*

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

-
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 .