Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[michaelcjm]

List,

Henceforth I'll address only "List" because while I am often implying 
dialogue with a particular member, I wouldn't want others to not join 
in.


Firstly (and this is just me) I love the Squid style because it 
challenges me to use my x-ray eyes on all the conceptual layers, and to 
compare chalk and cheese (this can be done at home, but not 
simplisticly).


Likewise the Sidestep is an enjoyable challenge but I will say several 
things about this.  It does give rise to difficult situations but I want 
to show how we can deal with them.


i - The person using this in a specific instance is doing so in this 
specific instance (no matter if he "always" does it).
ii- Our repertoire of responses (and not just the person with their name 
listed at the beginning) is wide; we can introduce an analogy; we can - 
for day or two - wind down our own interventions in the debate over a 
highly specific point whilst leaving it to others (which oughtn't to 
mean just the one "sparring partner") to take it where they want to;


I mustn't try to import an ethos from "forums" or "blog comments" but, 
in some I've seen, it doesn't matter if no-one takes me up on a point, 
or if a new person butts in, or if their argument is inadequate.  Here 
obviously argument is supreme so we ought to help each other out - as 
imaginatively as we can - because any particular participant might have 
limited energy and time.


If a person repeatedly "won't" admit they sidestep, we could humorously 
comment on a case by case basis always as far from ad hominem as we can 
muster.  Treating it on a case by case basis.  That's merely an idea of 
mine.  As arguments like all entities in imagination, are concrete so it 
is they have life of their own without imputing one of us to having 
"animated" them.


Likewise selectivity: if a person has rejected the whole unjustifiably, 
can we not state this as brefly as poss and point back to some sections 
we posted before.  If they reject it again we can state it again more 
briefly still.  Anyone else with a bright idea, can surely pitch in, and 
help out.


It can be difficult to remember a staement is a question so perhaps we 
should use actual question marks more often so as to reinforce the 
impression of openness.  And CSP was surely at home with paradox (as am 
I).


My life history made me interested in the interface between psychology, 
epistemology and intuitive logic.  My impression was logic includes 3ns: 
anyone comment on that please?


Gary, I should have been more explicit, I wasn't meaning to reinforce 
any accusations against you that had been on weak grounds, I was simply 
trying to sum up the recent inferences.


Michael Mitchell
former translator, UK

On 2020-05-14 14:53, Edwina Taborsky wrote:


Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.

That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is
this necessarily the problem??

I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that
promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are
acceptable. I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is
both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are
more valid and accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon does
exist!

 I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' or
even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection of
diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in focus...It
would be nice for more diversity - not in views but in focus - ie,
moving Peirce into examining the real world in areas such as AI,
physics, biology - but that's not what I see as the problem.

I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as
'given' that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of
Peirce - then, how does one's Argument develop this?

 Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of Peirce
by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That - after
all, is one method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly exhausts the
reader into silence but - is it in itself proof? It certainly seems
reasonable; after all - quotations-are-quotations, so to speak. But-
is this an actual argument and does this method include understanding?

Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's
post is rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the
whole argument is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its
natural sense] is merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other
methods include of course, Selectivity, where the other person's
argument is dismissed by selecting one small part of it as
'problematic' and thus, the whole argument is thrown out. And so on...
These are hardly methods unique to this list but are found wherever
mankind gets together to argue and debate. We aren't pure 

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jerry Rhee]

Dear list,



Thank you for this great demonstration of ‘*charity*’.

We have shown ourselves to be a learned person who can define a concept
perfectly.

For who can’t recognize an example when it’s on the table in front of them?



Best,

Jerry R

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:32 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

>
> JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly self-defines
> yourself as very particular about exact references - 'selected' from what I
> wrote - which thereby changed the meaning - and declared that I wrote:
>
> 1] "  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' "
>
> But I did not say the above.
>
> I never said: 'theorizing is an irrelevant exercise'. I said "if one
> substitutes one 'name/term' for another - that is an irrelevant exercise'.
> Substitution of terms is not theorizing - so - why did you change my words?
> Why did you remove 'substitutes' and insert 'theorizing'?
>
> 2] Nor did I say that theorizing is " undertaken only by people who
> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' .
> Where did I say this???
>
> Nor did I say that I was against theorizing. What I wrote was:
>
> "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing against
> them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in the actual
> world - to explain this real world?
>
> As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and
> have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the
> seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far
> from the real empirical objective world."
>
> 3] I see nothing wrong, as a researcher, with asking whether a theory can
> be applied, functionally, to explain the real world.
>
> But I do see something wrong - on the basis of not only charity but
> integrity - with changing the words someone writes, with leaving out
> phrases, with putting in other words and phrases - to incorrectly present
> someone's comments. Why did you do this?
>
> Edwina
>
>
> On Thu 14/05/20 4:58 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET:  You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
> about it.
>
>
> Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided links
> to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see the complete
> contexts for themselves.  That is precisely why I always include the
> CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with everything that I quote
> from Peirce.
>
> ET:  Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a few
> phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
>
>
> Again, I provided links to the original posts and only quoted the portions
> that I considered to be especially inappropriate.  Why fill up an
> e-mail with lengthy excerpts?
>
> ET:  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't
> provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual
> situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion
> that I am against theories or theorizing.
>
>
> First, where did I make any such assertion?  Specific examples, please.
>
> Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here.  It sure
> sounds to me like a demand that any and all theorizing must include "how
> these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real
> world."
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky 
> wrote:
>
>> JAS
>>
>> You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments about
>> it.
>>
>> I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
>> against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore this
>> fact and present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me that you
>> used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the totality. Why did
>> you do so?
>>
>> EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
>> arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations
>> in the actual world - to explain this real world?
>>
>> As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and
>> have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the
>> seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far
>> from the real empirical objective world."
>>
>> 
>>
>> My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
>> against theories and theorizing;
>>
>> My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider
>> that  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
>> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the 

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
 JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly
self-defines yourself as very particular about exact references -
'selected' from what I wrote - which thereby changed the meaning -
and declared that I wrote:

1] "  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by
people who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the
seminar room' "

But I did not say the above.

I never said: 'theorizing is an irrelevant exercise'. I said "if one
substitutes one 'name/term' for another - that is an irrelevant
exercise'.  Substitution of terms is not theorizing - so - why did
you change my words? Why did you remove 'substitutes' and insert
'theorizing'?

2] Nor did I say that theorizing is " undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room' .  Where did I say this???

Nor did I say that I was against theorizing. What I wrote was:

"As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing
against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in
the actual world - to explain this real world? 

As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."

3] I see nothing wrong, as a researcher, with asking whether a
theory can be applied, functionally, to explain the real world. 

But I do see something wrong - on the basis of not only charity but
integrity - with changing the words someone writes, with leaving out
phrases, with putting in other words and phrases - to incorrectly
present someone's comments. Why did you do this?

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  4:58 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET:  You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading
comments about it. 
 Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided
links to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see
the complete contexts for themselves.  That is precisely why I always
include the CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with
everything that I quote from Peirce. 
 ET:  Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a
few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
 Again, I provided links to the original posts and  only quoted the
portions that I considered to be especially inappropriate.  Why fill
up an e-mail with lengthy excerpts?
 ET:  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people
don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain
actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from
your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. 
 First, where did I make any such assertion?  Specific examples,
please.
 Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here.  It sure
sounds to me like a demand that any and all theorizing must include
"how these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in
the real world." 
 Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
 On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:
JAS 

You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it. 

I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore
this fact and present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me
that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the
totality. Why did you do so? 
EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real
situations in the actual world - to explain this real world? 

As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." 



My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
against theories and theorizing;  

My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider that
 theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room'  

Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST
theories or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing
is 'undertaken only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please
stop picking out bits and pieces and making my meaning 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it.


Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided links
to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see the complete
contexts for themselves.  That is precisely why I always include the
CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with everything that I quote
from Peirce.

ET:  Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a few
phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?


Again, I provided links to the original posts and only quoted the portions
that I considered to be especially inappropriate.  Why fill up an
e-mail with lengthy excerpts?

ET:  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't
provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual
situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion
that I am against theories or theorizing.


First, where did I make any such assertion?  Specific examples, please.

Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here.  It sure sounds
to me like a *demand *that any and all theorizing *must *include "how these
theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real world."

Regards,

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

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> JAS
>
> You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments about
> it.
>
> I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was against
> their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore this fact and
> present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me that you used - you
> selected only a few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so?
>
> EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing
> against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in the
> actual world - to explain this real world?
>
> As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and
> have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the
> seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far
> from the real empirical objective world."
>
> 
>
> My comments above are very different from your statement that I am against
> theories and theorizing;
>
> My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider
> that  theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
> "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room'
>
> Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST theories
> or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing is 'undertaken
> only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please stop picking out
> bits and pieces and making my meaning completely different.
>
>  I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't
> provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual
> situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion
> that I am against theories or theorizing. It baffles me why you stick so
> tenaciously to such a misinterpretation - despite my actual words!
>
> Edwina
>

-
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: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS

1] You write - 'thanks for acknowledging this '- as if I ever
rejected such a view!

2] Yes - I know that you reject my view of the Sign as a triad -
made up of the O-R-I.  As to who is more accurate - that's an
opinion. ..since I don't see that your insistence on terminology
clarifies with HOW this triad, as a semiosic process, actually works.
I disagree, for example, with your insertion of the FI before the
others - but- that's another issue. 

3] I don't agree that your textual references to 'sign' and
'representamen' provides any insight into HOW this triadic process
actually functions. That is - I continue to see your concern as
terminological rather than analytic. 

4] You just wrote a post where you said that I said: 

 theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people
who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the
seminar room' 

Even though - this is NOT what I wrote!

5] It's hardly a generous attitude to suggest to me that I continue
with my focus on the 'practical application of theory'. While others
get on with their quite different work ]pure theorizing]. That's
hardly the function of a discussion list - where we each 'get on with
our own isolate agenda, so to speak' rather than dialogue with each
other. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask someone who is working on
theory: How does this theory function to explain the actual world???

6] Pragmatism can hardly be confined to only one section/branch of
Peirce's work.

7] And I don't see why it is offensive to ask that a theory show how
it can be functional in the real world.

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  4:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Edwina, List:
 ET:  I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both
valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are
more valid and accurate and truthful than others.
 Thanks for acknowledging this.  As an example, in my view it is an
invalid and inaccurate interpretation of Peirce to use "Sign" for
"the triad" and "representamen" for its "median node," rather than
treating these terms as synonyms for the first correlate of the
genuine triadic relation of representing or mediating.  The only
alternative consistent with his writings is to use "sign" for "a
Representamen of which some Interpretant is a cognition of a mind"
(CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--i.e., "a Representamen with a mental
interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903)--but he ultimately decided
that "there was no need of this horrid long word" because "sign" is
"a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very broad word in
almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193, 1905). 
 ET:  Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts?
 Not by itself, but it is certainly an important type of evidence for
supporting or refuting the plausibility of a particular
interpretation.  As I recently  stated [1], "'Constant references to
the text' are a valid inductive method for testing hypotheses about
the text itself, as well as hypotheses about the views of the author
as expressed in the text."  For the example above, I provide three
quotes that demonstrate how using "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node" is inconsistent with Peirce's
careful definitions of both "sign" and "representamen."   Again [2],
I do not consider this to be merely a terminological disagreement, I
believe that it has important conceptual ramifications.
 ET:  In my case, for example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' -
when I have never said that ... I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! 
 Where has anyone done this?  Specific examples, please.
 On the contrary, with his characteristic generosity of attitude,
Gary R. stated , "Edwina, please do proceed with what you consider to
be the kind of inquiry that you consider to be most proper, or most
important (or however you conceive of it) on this list and off, your
particular 'practical application' of theory emphasis certainly being
valuable and important."  On the other hand, those of us who tend to
focus more on theory have very recently had such efforts summarily 
dismissed as "an irrelevant exercise" and our motives impugned as
"prefer[ring] the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar
room'."  As Gary R.  concluded, "I implore you and every list member
to simply get on with her or his work and let others with different
interests get on with theirs. That is all."
  ET:  Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where
his pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg,
speculative grammar! 
 Where has anyone said this?  Specific examples, please.
 On the contrary, Gary R. simply  observed that pragmatism per se--as
"merely a method of ascertaining the 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Edwina, List:

ET:  I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both valid and
necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are more valid and
accurate and truthful than others.


Thanks for acknowledging this.  As an example, in my view it is an invalid
and inaccurate interpretation of Peirce to use "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node," rather than treating these terms as
synonyms for the first correlate of the genuine triadic relation of
representing or mediating.  The only alternative consistent with his
writings is to use "sign" for "a Representamen of which some Interpretant
is a cognition of a mind" (CP 2.242, EP 2:291, 1903)--i.e., "a
Representamen with a mental interpretant" (CP 2.274, EP 2:273, 1903)--but
he ultimately decided that "there was no need of this horrid long word"
because "sign" is "a wonderful case of an almost popular use of a very
broad word in almost the exact sense of the scientific definition" (SS 193,
1905).

ET:  Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of Peirce
by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts?


Not by itself, but it is certainly an important type of evidence for
supporting or refuting the plausibility of a particular interpretation.  As
I recently stated
,
"'Constant references to the text' are a valid inductive method for testing
hypotheses *about *the text itself, as well as hypotheses about the views
of the author as *expressed *in the text."  For the example above, I
provide three quotes that demonstrate how using "Sign" for "the triad" and
"representamen" for its "median node" is inconsistent with Peirce's careful
definitions of both "sign" and "representamen."  Again
, I do
not consider this to be merely a terminological disagreement, I believe
that it has important conceptual ramifications.

ET:  In my case, for example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I
have never said that ... I am defined as 'hostile to theory'!


Where has anyone done this?  Specific examples, please.

On the contrary, with his characteristic generosity of attitude, Gary R.
stated ,
"Edwina, please *do *proceed with what *you *consider to be the kind of
inquiry that you consider to be most proper, or most important (or however
you conceive of it) on this list and off, your particular 'practical
application' of theory emphasis certainly being valuable and important."
On the other hand, those of us who tend to focus more on theory have very
recently had such efforts summarily dismissed
 as "an
irrelevant exercise" and our motives impugned
 as
"prefer[ring] the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar
room'."  As Gary R. concluded
, "I
implore you and every list member to simply get on with her or his work and
let others with different interests get on with theirs. That is all."

ET:  Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar!


Where has anyone said this?  Specific examples, please.

On the contrary, Gary R. simply observed
 that
pragmatism *per se*--as "merely a method of ascertaining the meanings of
hard words and of abstract concepts" (CP 5.464, EP 2:400, 1907)--falls
under the third branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic,
which is speculative rhetoric or methodeutic.  Consequently, *in itself*
pragmatism is primarily a matter of theory, but Peirce himself immediately
adds, "As to the ulterior and indirect effects of practicing the
pragmatistic method, that is quite another affair" (ibid).  The same is
true of speculative grammar and all the other branches of philosophy.

ET:  What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a switch of my frankly valid
comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To Theory.


This goes both ways.  What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere,
where a focus on theory, such as mine, is not met with the defensive tactic
of "Get Out of the Seminar Room" or "Stop Paraphrasing Peirce."

ET:  So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes,
charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation.


Indeed, as long as that goes for *all *of us.

Regards,

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

On Thu, May 14, 2020 

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS 

You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it. 

I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore
this fact and present a false image of me.  Here's the quote from me
that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the
totality. Why did you do so? 
EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not
arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real
situations in the actual world - to explain this real world? 

As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly,
and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I
call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and
models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world."



My comments above are very different from your statement that I am
against theories and theorizing;  

My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them -  that I consider that
 theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who
"prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room'  

Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST
theories or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing
is 'undertaken only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please
stop picking out bits and pieces and making my meaning completely
different.

 I specifically have said that what I am against is when people
don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain
actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from
your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. It baffles
me why you stick so tenaciously to such a misinterpretation - despite
my actual words!

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  3:50 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
 John, List:
 JFS:  The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author
are true.
  Where have I claimed otherwise?  Specific examples, please.
 JFS:  For the arguments I objected to, I showed that a charitable
interpretation of what Peirce wrote led to a conclusion that was
different from a charitable interpretation of what you wrote. 
 Different readers can and often do disagree about what constitutes a
charitable interpretation of someone else's writings.  Naturally, a
different interpretation of what Peirce wrote leads to a different
conclusion, and the burden is then to support one's own
interpretation (or refute someone else's) with arguments.  That is
one reason why the secondary literature has become so extensive.
 JAS:  We (supposedly) agree that it is inappropriate to make
sweeping judgments about who is (or is not) capable of understanding
Peirce's writings and discussing them intelligently.  We (apparently)
disagree about who among us has been guilty of doing exactly that. 
 JFS:  I never said that you were incapable of understanding Peirce.
 It is not about me individually, it is about "sweeping judgments"
like the following.
 JFS [1]:  You cannot understand anything Peirce wrote unless you
repeat the kind of disciplined testing that he did in developing and
revising his theories.
  JFS [2]:  As Peirce said, it's indeed wonderful that different
people have very different ways of thinking.  But in order to
understand any of them, we must recognize their background in order
to understand how and why they came to their conclusions.
  While certain kinds of experiences and familiarity with Peirce's
biography are certainly helpful for understanding his writings,
absolute statements like these set an unreasonably high bar that no
one has the authority to impose on others.  Rather than dismissing
someone else's interpretations because of who is giving them, the
appropriate response when there is disagreement is to make a better
argument. 
 JFS:  A list moderator has a right to admonish participants about
making inappropriate statements.  But a moderator has an obligation
to quote the statement(s) explicitly and state exactly why they are
inappropriate.
 Gary R.  did [3] exactly that regarding Edwina\'s [4] comments [5]
that theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people
who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar
room' ... far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." 
 JFS:  But Gary R made a blanket statement about my ability to
interpret Peirce without stating a single example where my statement
was wrong or inappropriate.  He also made a blanket statement that
your arguments were superior to mine.
  Where has Gary R. made any such "blanket statements"?  Specific
examples, please.
 JFS:  On several occasions, he said that he agreed with you and not

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Charity (was Categories and...

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.

That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and invalid/incorrect/untrue ones. But is
this necessarily the problem??

I don't think that a resolution to this view would be one that
promotes the relativism of 'diversity' - where 'all views are
acceptable. I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is
both valid and necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some
are more valid and accurate and truthful than others. So - Wimbledon
does exist!

 I think the problems on the list aren't a drive to 'the truth' or
even diversity of views - for - really, there is a strong rejection
of diversity not simply in interpretations but above all in
focus...It would be nice for more diversity - not in views but in
focus - ie, moving Peirce into examining the real world in areas such
as AI, physics, biology - but that's not what I see as the problem. 

I think a key problem is 'method' of argumentation. If we take as
'given' that the agenda/focus is to show an accurate analysis of
Peirce - then, how does one's Argument develop this?

 Is it enough to prove the veracity of one's interpretation of
Peirce by a massive cloud of quotations lifted from his texts? That -
after all, is one method [aka, the Squid Method]. It certainly
exhausts the reader into silence but - is it in itself proof? It
certainly seems reasonable; after all - quotations-are-quotations, so
to speak. But- is this an actual argument and does this method include
understanding?

Another method is what I might call The SideStep - where someone's
post is rebutted with 'Peirce never used that word'- and thus, the
whole argument is dismissed as invalid...when the word [used in its
natural sense] is merely a synonym for the Peircean argument. Other
methods include of course, Selectivity, where the other person's
argument is dismissed by selecting one small part of it as
'problematic' and thus, the whole argument is thrown out. And so
on... These are hardly methods unique to this list but are found
wherever mankind gets together to argue and debate. We aren't pure
and exempt. 

Interestingly enough, on a list devoted to semiosis, ie, information
and cognition - the misunderstandings are huge. In my case, for
example - I am set up as an 'anti-theorist' - when I have never said
that. My view is that theories are vital [as 3ns] but are empty
unless expressed within the actualities of the real world of 2ns.
That is - theories must be examined as to whether they actually,
truthfully, represent and inform us about the real world. Theories
can't survive on logic alone.  But - despite my repeated assertions
of this view - I am defined as 'hostile to theory'! That's a neat
defensive tactic, using Tenacity,  to not deal with my concern!

Indeed - this misinterpretation even extends to Peirce - where his
pragmatism is considered peripheral to his work in, eg, speculative
grammar! 

I certainly don't want a 'charitable interpretation' of my position
- leading to the misinterpretation on this list that I am
anti-theorist. Nor do I want relativism where 'anything goes' and we
assume we are all really OK guys. 

What I would appreciate is a less hostile atmosphere - where a
critique, such as mine, when I ask that theories cannot be set up as
isolate from the real world - is not met with a  switch of my frankly
valid comment...into the defensive tactic of You Are Hostile To
Theory. That doesn't solve the issue. It just kicks the can out the
door, so to speak. But it's still there..albeit rusty and distant.

So - my claim is that I think we need, not relativism, but- yes,
charity; but also, a look at our own methods of argumentation. 

Edwina
 On Thu 14/05/20  7:19 AM , michael...@waitrose.com sent:
 John, Gary, 
 I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a  
 result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method.  Also that
a  
 similar situation has recurred before.  But that doesn't mean that
there  
 is a flaw in his overall method per se. 
 I'm inferring this from recent comments by participants to this
topic.   
 I think both you and JAS should carry on in your underlying methods
as  
 such. 
 Please can you provide hyperlinks from the archive, or similar exact
 
 reference, so that list members can continue to benefit from your  
 arguments in each case, given these are held on server specially for
our  
 continued reference. 
 In natural language we point out, say, "method of JAS" and then
again,  
 "result from instance of application by JAS of method of JAS".  The 

 string of items in the latter phrase constitute context of
occurrence  
 but not a watertight causal string. 
 Now the method of JAS is to