Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of Science

[Harold Orbach]

Charles Morris was a performing magician in his youth -- Max Fisch brought this 
to my attention in 1983 when I was researching Morris's papers at the Peirce 
project.  Morris has an elaborate album with his ad's and reports of his 
performances, etc. As his miserable editing of Mead's ms's show, he vastly 
overrated his abilities so magicians aren't necessarily smarter than their 
audience apart from what they have read or learned from others of tricks.

Harold L. Orbach

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 11, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Benjamin Udell 
bud...@nyc.rr.commailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote:


Dear John, list,

Thank you, John. That's an interesting article, I'm glad I read it. I'm 
reminded of a book about Tausk and Freud that I read when I was young; it was 
called _Talent and Genius_, and the author argued that talent is the ability to 
recognize genius. It would be interesting if Dunning tried to find people who 
are able to recognize people smarter than themselves - I mean smarter at tasks 
in which all of them are engaged, not just smarter-sounding through big words - 
and look for what such smartness-recognizing people, if he can find them, have 
in common.

Ford Madox Ford somewhere wrote that the reason that it is difficult to 
recognize excellent contemporary literature (i.e., literary art) is that one's 
mind is filled with fads and fashions that one has not recognized as mere fads 
and fashions yet. He said that literature is anything still 'readable' after 50 
or 100 years. It's been a long time since I read it but, by 'readable', I think 
he meant not only _intelligible_ but _esthetically tolerable_. Of course he may 
have had a higher standard of such readability than many of us have.

Anyway, the article makes enough sense that I think I need to change my claim. 
If _everybody_ is inclined to self-overestimation in intelligence (cf. Peirce's 
remark that everybody thinks himself (or herself) to know enough about logic), 
then does anything remain of my claim about a temptation biggest for the 
intelligent?

Magicians, when not performing for one another or for aficionados, perform for 
audiences that usually lack special expertise about magic tricks. Such an 
audience is outside its own area of knowledgeability and consists of (A) those 
who don't know that they're out of their depth, or don't realize just _how_ out 
of their depth they are, and (B) those who know (or at least believe) that 
they're out of their depth. Magicians have noticed, according to a magician 
whom I used to know quite well, that Set A includes people who seem smart, seem 
to regard themselves as smart, and try (sometimes desperately) to figure the 
trick out, while set B includes the other people, who don't try to figure the 
trick out and are not much impressed because, well, you did it somehow.  Thus 
a magician is in the somewhat paradoxical position of regarding some people as 
smart enough to be fooled or feel bewildered (either way, it's when they get 
caught up in trying analyze and explain the trick), and others as too stupid to 
be fooled or feel bewildered or, to put it another way, too stupid to be as 
impressed as the magician would like!  To be sure, they're smart in a practical 
way. By 'fooled', I mean, not by the fooled one's known unknowns but by the 
fooled one's unknown unknowns.

When I think of that, I think of certain psychologists and physicists who have 
been fooled by certain prestidigitators who have claimed paranormal abilities - 
no names please. Everybody who cares about that perennial debate knows where to 
go for names and arguments from either side.

It is not difficult in theoretical research to get beyond one's own 'turf' - 
for example an excellent biologist is not necessarily an excellent 
statistician, and vice versa, and the more interdisciplinary the research, the 
more it can become an issue. More generally, most of us have gotten off of 
familiar turf in various ways at one time or another, and, _bolstered by the 
confidence and, for some of us, the rewards, honors, etc., that we have gained 
in dealing with the more familiar_, have not taken sufficient account of where 
we are now, and have hardly known what hit us.

So, I retract what I said about the method of status as being, among inquirial 
methods of authority, the biggest temptation of the intelligent and replace 
it with the idea that the method of status, and of granting oneself too high a 
status of knowledgeability, is the biggest temptation among the aforesaid 
methods tempting those trying for a theoretical or hypothetical understanding 
that goes beyond the familiar - but on the other hand, those seriously trying 
for a theoretical or hypothetical understanding of unfamiliar things are 
likelier to be smart and to rate themselves as even smarter (as most people 
overrate themselves in intelligence, if Dunning's samples are fairly 
representative).

Best, Ben

On 4/10/2014 4:05 PM, John Collier wrote:

Dear Ben, 

Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 'Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?' – Published in Journal 'Advances in Life Sciences'

[Harold Orbach]

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Harold Orbach <h...@ksu.edu<mailto:h...@ksu.edu>>
Date: February 16, 2016 at 10:26:50 AM CST
To: 
"online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com>"
 
<online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 'Why Biology is Beyond Physical 
Sciences?' – Published in Journal 'Advances in Life Sciences'

Perhaps, instead of this idle speculation you ought to consider the 
confirmation of Einstein's hypothesis of gravity waves that has now been 
confirmed and reconfirmed of black holes engulfing other black holes and its 
implications for "life" over time in the universe.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
<sjaro...@iinet.net.au<mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:

>” I think we need to be humble at this early stage of our knowledge about the 
>universe. It could well be that intelligent life is plentiful. And of course 
>unintelligent single cell life would be even more plentiful. Also it could be 
>that fancy life is rare.”

I see an interpretation emerging that might enable us to be a bit more bold. 
Here’s what we know with some certainty:

1) The elements and compounds as they exist on Earth are probably the 
same elements and compounds that are likely to exist elsewhere throughout the 
universe;
2) The elements and compounds as they exist on Earth are “engineered” 
with very precise properties that make life possible. We saw this in this video 
clip<https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk> that I posted a couple of weeks ago. The 
astonishing complexity within a cell would be impossible without the very 
precise properties of the same “dumb dirt” that is likely to exist on other 
planets throughout the universe;
3) It is the persistence of complexity across time that renders null 
and void any notion of persistent complexity by dumb luck. Entropy and all 
that. How do we know this? We know this because we inhabit a planet where 
complexity persists across time... the evidence is all around us, in our very 
own persistence across time. It therefore follows that the same resistance to 
entropy, the same persistence of complexity, will be abundant in any direction 
we might care to point our telescopes;
4) Within the context of Peircean biosemiotics, there exists the 
framework for the mind-stuff – the “knowing how to be” - that resists entropy.

CONCLUSION: So long as a moderately-sized planet, rich in elements and 
compounds, exists within a “habitable zone” around a star, the “dumb dirt” of 
which it is comprised will predispose it to become a living, breathing planet. 
Life is the universal given... a certainty, not just a “possibility” or “maybe”.

sj

From: 
online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com<mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com> 
[mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stanley A. KLEIN
Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 1:55 PM
To: Online Sadhu Sanga
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 'Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?' – 
Published in Journal 'Advances in Life Sciences'

To Stephen Jarosek,
I think we need to be humble at this early stage of our knowledge about the 
universe. It could well be that intelligent life is plentiful. And of course 
unintelligent single cell life would be even more plentiful. Also it could be 
that fancy life is rare.

To C. Dass
Also it could be that consciousness is primary before universe. Actually as 
Penrose points out the deeply mysterious way our world works could well have a 
wondrous power that many call cosmic consciousness and that others call revised 
Standard Model at the bottom. I think your approach of giving the wondrous 
aspects of the universe the name "consciousness" is fine. with me. I like that 
more glorious language. In the West it is called God language. In the East it 
is called Consciousness language. In your latest posting you said:

Your proposal leads to the conclusion that consciousness produced from inert 
chemicals because every living cell is also conscious. But there is no evidence 
for consciousness originating from non-conscious substance. .

And even more recently you said:
" Now you say that 'We should be aware that the way it likely started was by 
some special environment that have the useful ingredients of for life.' How it 
is different from those who say that life has been created by a creator by some 
special creation?"

Yes I agree that there is no difference between those two languages.

Dear C. Dass. I now have a question for you. Do you believe in psychic 
phenomena like precognition or telepathy?

The wondrous aspect of these psychic phenomena is that they can NOT be 
explained by standard science. The nifty thing about psychic phenomena is that 
which of the two wondrous languages

[PEIRCE-L] Fwd: NPR.org - Italian Author And Philosopher Umberto Eco Dead At 84

[Harold Orbach]

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "NPR" >
Date: February 20, 2016 at 2:06:42 AM CST
To: >
Subject: NPR.org - Italian Author And Philosopher Umberto Eco 
Dead At 84

h...@ksu.edu has sent you the following story: Italian 
Author And Philosopher Umberto Eco Dead At 84
[NPR]




Hal thought you would be interested in this story
Message: FYI


Italian Author And Philosopher Umberto Eco Dead At 84

Internationally acclaimed Italian author Umberto Eco has died, according to his 
American publisher. He was 84. He launched his career as a novelist with The 
Name of the Rose in 1980.

Read this 
story

[http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/02/19/eco_sq-bd9b821114288095e30da955819301fcc755b5a2.jpg?s=12]
  




This email was sent by: NPR, N. Capitol St. NE Washington, DC, 20002, 
United States. This message was sent to 
hlorb...@k-state.edu.






-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Harold Orbach]

Steven Jarosek confuses BF Skinner with JB Watson but also misrepresents Watson:
Skinner did not use rats but pigeons and human subjects, his own children in 
his famous Skinner nox.
Watson did his PhD with the white rat, but at Chicago used a large variety of 
animals for ethnographic observations and at Johns Hopkins is most famous for 
his experiments with infants, e.g., the Little Hans experiment.  After leaving 
Hopkins because of his affair with his assistant, later his wife, he went into 
the advertising field where he revolutionized the way grocery stores were 
organized, using open shelves and checkout counter displays of small items to 
encourage impulse buying.  He also revolutionized radio and in turn modern TV 
advertising by using loud, jarring and speeded up voice tracks to get 
listener's attention and capture their impulses to respond.  That is, he 
"experimented" on vast human subject populations.

I find this whole line of religious spiritual anti-scientific and anti- 
rational propagandizing to be inconsistent with exploring Peirce's work and 
views or attempting to criticize and modify them.  In the process, Peirce as a 
human with faults and follies is ignored as is his relation to contemporary 
pragmatism.

Harold L. Orbach
Emeritus, Kansas State University
PhD, University of Minnesota

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek 
> wrote:

There was a time when homely grandmothers fussing over their pets were more in 
touch with principles of consciousness than scientists in labcoats, back in the 
days of Pavlov or BF Skinner, performing experiments on dogs and rats. One 
understood the sentient nature of other non-human creatures better than the 
other, even though the former were routinely disparaged with charges of 
anthropomorphism. The irony… anthropomorphism pitted against anthropocentrism. 
Anthropocentrism relates to the materialist, infotech anthropocentrism 
portraying humans as the most special products of Darwinian evolution, that 
most complex, most perfect and intelligent of all of dumb luck’s creation. I 
think that homely grandmothers, by far, held the more realistic interpretation.

Indeed, as much as I am a staunch critic of feminism, I must admit that the 
single one thing that I am grateful to feminists for is how they’ve opened up 
the narrative on consciousness (e.g., Dian Fossey and her work with primates). 
If it wasn’t for feminists, we’d still be stuck in BF Skinner… it almost hurts 
me to have to acknowledge this, but hey… let’s give recognition where it is due.

It seems almost paradoxical that those who are least “scientific” can sometimes 
hold a more accurate representation of the nature of things than those who wear 
their labcoats like a badge of authority.

Cheers,
sj

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. 
B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2016 10:46 AM
To: 
online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

>Consciousness is not something science cannot deal with, but the bedrock of 
>all science.

There is a difference between consciousness as a tool of study and 
consciousness as an object of study. Science can deal with consciousness as a 
tool of study since every scientist possesses consciousness -- it is the 
activity of consciousness that results in such or other (to a certain extent 
adequate) model of the world. In this sense consciousness can be called "the 
bedrock of all science", as well as the bedrock of any cognitive activity too.

But, from the above does not follow that Science can deal with consciousness as 
an object of study. To study consciousness we need to take into account the 
agency of informational factor which is ignored by current Science while 
studying (ordinary) physical phenomena. So, to study consciousness we need to 
elaborate and apply very special methods and models which correspond the nature 
of our object of study.

Pseudoscience emerges every time we try to apply inappropriate methods and 
models. So, the Physics of consciousness is an example of pseudoscience.

Best,
Serge Patlavskiy


From: "Edwards, Jonathan" >
To: 
"online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com"
 
>
Cc: "b...@cosmic-mindreach.com" 
>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?


On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:32, 
b...@cosmic-mindreach.com wrote:

The concepts and propositions get “meaning,” viz., “content,” 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

[Harold Orbach]

Pardon my intrusion into this unending mishmash:

1.  Peirce's neglected argument is for the REALITY of God  not  the EXISTENCE 
of God.

2. Anselm's ontological argument for the EXISTENCE of God is not "pretty nearly 
the most famous argument in the history of philosophy," only in the history of 
a small segment of the so-called WESTERN world, a minor part of the total areas 
and populations of what is termed "the earth" that came to dominate and 
"discover" most of the other areas for a few hundred years up to the present 
compared with other civilizations or empires that had dominance over larger and 
smaller areas for thousands of years.

3.  Other lands and peoples have and have had different views on the nature of 
God or Gods or Goddesses or if there are any that EXIST and how anyone might 
come to know this.  They also have and have had different kinds of "things" 
that were believed to be gods or sacred.

Harold L. Orbach
PhD, University of Minnesota Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology
Emeritus, Kansas State University
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Ben Novak 
> wrote:

Dear Jerry, List:

You ask two questions. First, what is Anselm's ontological argument. 
Thankfully, that is easy to answer. It is short, and I append it to this email 
at the end.

Your second question is why "you are imposing the question on us, which 
includes me [Jerry Rhee]?

First. let me clarify for the record: I am not from Missouri, and only used 
that phrase assuming everyone is familiar with it, in order to get to the "show 
me" part. Further, I do not know whether everyone in Missouri has heard of 
Anselm's ontological argument, though I assume not.

However, I would expect (silly me!) that anyone with a Ph.D. would have heard 
of it, since it is pretty nearly the most famous argument about God's existence 
in the history of philosophy, and would be expected to be brought up in any 
introductory, or history of, philosophy course or in any conversation or study 
anytime anyone questions whether God exists.

Further, since we are talking about Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the 
Reality of God," Anselm's argument would naturally come to mind as soon as 
anyone inquires into why Peirce thought his argument had been "neglected." In 
other words, the very title of Peirce's paper points to other arguments for 
God's existence in the context of which he is placing his. But it is worth 
noting that Peirce did not claim that he had a new argument, but suggests by 
his title that it may have arisen before and was merely "neglected." So he was 
bringing a long neglected argument back into view. At least I take that to be 
one possible interpretation of the suggestion in his title.(On the other hand, 
I take Peirce's title to imply that he felt his argument had been neglected 
because it was so simple that no one thought to dignify it previously. 
Silly me.)

Since the original questions that commenced this chain include "How exactly is 
"this theory of thinking" logically connected with "the hypothesis of God's 
reality"? I assumed that that was to be one of the major questions dealt with 
in the discussion, which Jon thought to begin by asking his four questions.

Now, the ontological argument has evoked a stupendous literature in philosophy 
and logic, because it seems to prove the existence of God by a purely logical 
and non-empirical method. That is why it is called ontological, i.e., the 
argument proceeds only from being (onto=being).  Philosophers agree that Anselm 
makes at least two different arguments in chapters II and III, though some 
philosophers find three and even four separate arguments. Many logicians have 
wrestled with it, and some logicians see it as a "modal" argument.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a very brief and readable 
description of Anselm's ontological argument: Be sure  to read sections 1, 2a, 
3, and 4.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

I hope that you will agree, after reading the brief account in the link above 
that Anselm is quite relevant to placing Peirce's "neglected" argument into 
context. The connection is that both Anselm and Peirce seek to prove God's 
existence purely from a thought process.

Now, if you want to read a different take on Anselm's understanding of what is 
meant by "existence," I invite you to read my article entitled "Anselm on 
Nothing," in the International Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 48, Issue 3, 
September 2008, pages 305-320, which you may read on line here:

https://www.academia.edu/13891780/Anselm_on_Nothing

For this second link, it must be borne in mind that Anselm wrote two tracts 
relating to God's existence (or being), and the first link deals with his 
second work, the Proslogion, where his famous ontological argument is found 
(appended below), while the second link (my article) deals mostly with Anselm's 
arguments in his first work, the Monologion. 

Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

[Harold Orbach]

My previous message, attached below, didn't get to the Peirce list but only 
apparently to Ben Novak and Jerry Rhee.  The latest exchange, especially 
attacking Edwina for her personal beliefs about the EXISTENCE of God, i.e., the 
minority view of that small segment of the inhabitants of the 7th Rock from the 
Sun, does not interfere with her accepting the REALITY of THAT God, as Peirce 
apparently did.  But there is a persistent confusion on the part of those who 
apparently believe in the EXISTENCE of that God, which there is no evidence 
that Peirce ever did, with HIS REALITY.  Perhaps the list members might read 
Peirce's agreement, clearly  expressed on more than one occasion for his 
youthful friend, Francis E. Abbot's view on the matter.  Or of that of James, 
Dewey and Mead.

Harold L. Orbach

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: >
Date: September 14, 2016 at 1:20:31 AM CDT
To: Ben Novak >
Cc: Jerry Rhee >, Peirce-L 
>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Pardon my intrusion into this unending mishmash:

1.  Peirce's neglected argument is for the REALITY of God  not  the EXISTENCE 
of God.

2. Anselm's ontological argument for the EXISTENCE of God is not "pretty nearly 
the most famous argument in the history of philosophy," only in the history of 
a small segment of the so-called WESTERN world, a minor part of the total areas 
and populations of what is termed "the earth" that came to dominate and 
"discover" most of the other areas for a few hundred years up to the present 
compared with other civilizations or empires that had dominance over larger and 
smaller areas for thousands of years.

3.  Other lands and peoples have and have had different views on the nature of 
God or Gods or Goddesses or if there are any that EXIST and how anyone might 
come to know this.  They also have and have had different kinds of "things" 
that were believed to be gods or sacred.

Harold L. Orbach
PhD, University of Minnesota Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology
Emeritus, Kansas State University
Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:32 PM, Ben Novak 
> wrote:

Dear Jerry, List:

You ask two questions. First, what is Anselm's ontological argument. 
Thankfully, that is easy to answer. It is short, and I append it to this email 
at the end.

Your second question is why "you are imposing the question on us, which 
includes me [Jerry Rhee]?

First. let me clarify for the record: I am not from Missouri, and only used 
that phrase assuming everyone is familiar with it, in order to get to the "show 
me" part. Further, I do not know whether everyone in Missouri has heard of 
Anselm's ontological argument, though I assume not.

However, I would expect (silly me!) that anyone with a Ph.D. would have heard 
of it, since it is pretty nearly the most famous argument about God's existence 
in the history of philosophy, and would be expected to be brought up in any 
introductory, or history of, philosophy course or in any conversation or study 
anytime anyone questions whether God exists.

Further, since we are talking about Peirce's "Neglected Argument for the 
Reality of God," Anselm's argument would naturally come to mind as soon as 
anyone inquires into why Peirce thought his argument had been "neglected." In 
other words, the very title of Peirce's paper points to other arguments for 
God's existence in the context of which he is placing his. But it is worth 
noting that Peirce did not claim that he had a new argument, but suggests by 
his title that it may have arisen before and was merely "neglected." So he was 
bringing a long neglected argument back into view. At least I take that to be 
one possible interpretation of the suggestion in his title.(On the other hand, 
I take Peirce's title to imply that he felt his argument had been neglected 
because it was so simple that no one thought to dignify it previously. 
Silly me.)

Since the original questions that commenced this chain include "How exactly is 
"this theory of thinking" logically connected with "the hypothesis of God's 
reality"? I assumed that that was to be one of the major questions dealt with 
in the discussion, which Jon thought to begin by asking his four questions.

Now, the ontological argument has evoked a stupendous literature in philosophy 
and logic, because it seems to prove the existence of God by a purely logical 
and non-empirical method. That is why it is called ontological, i.e., the 
argument proceeds only from being (onto=being).  Philosophers agree that Anselm 
makes at least two different arguments in chapters II and III, though some 
philosophers find three and even four separate arguments. Many logicians have 
wrestled with it, and some logicians see it as a "modal"