Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Ben, Jon S., John C., Helmut, list, Ben, thanks for your spot on comments and for providing links to two of Shepperson's most insightful papers (and more, including the *Critical Arts* volume on his work), as well as my paper focusing on his "Realism, Logic, and Social Communication" paper.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Ben, list: You said: *it's pretty hopeless to confine one's attention to such things. Part of Arnold's point seems to be that we can't so confine our attention, since social institutions themselves already are social inquiry processes.* Nietzsche said: *Essential to begin with the body and

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Gary, list, what I am confused about, is, that on one hand Shepperson says, that statistics are not helpful, but on the other hand he sticks with the term "...numerable". Might it not be better, to first inquire about the nature of humans, how humans have reacted in certain situations in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Gary R., Jon S., John C., list, Consideration of potential populations (abnumerable collections) involving "would-be's" might inform sociology, anthropology, etc., by focusing attention on aspects of their subject matter that are real yet difficult to draw inductive conclusions about. I've

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi Gary, list: I suppose you could think of that potential population as *movement of the community* where: *“Negative to negative is not change…* *change from the negative into the positive… is generation…* *change from positive to negative is destruction…* *only the change from positive

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

gt;; Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Hi everyone: "We can then (inductively) experiment with actual diamonds to find out whether, in fact, this is the case." Where is genuine doubt? Thanks,

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

Ben, Gary, list, For an example of hypotheses that remain uncertain I want to mention hypotheses whose conclusions are not yet existing facts, but viabilities in the future. Like: "So this will work: .", like keynesianism in economics, or political decisions meant to solve certain problems.

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

Gary R., list, I agree, a hypothesis may be uncertain yet still be helpful, although it's important for a contrite fallibilism in any science that the uncertainty, possible errors, etc., be examined and expressed. - Best, Ben On 10/1/2016 12:53 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Ben, List, Thanks

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

Jon S., list, Thanks, but I need to correct myself. I wrote, the scientific method is the inquiry method that, by its own account, can go wrong as well as right [End quote] I should say instead that the scientific method is the inquiry method in which inquiry, by its own account, can

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

Ben, List, Thanks for this clarification. You wrote: Researchers need to be able to state that a hypothesis has been ruled out in plain enough words to keep communication clear because the scientific method is the inquiry method that, by its own account, can go wrong as well as right. They don't

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

Ben U., Gary R., List: You have both made some great points today. Peirce clearly considered economy of research to be an important purpose of methodeutic or speculative (i.e., theoretical) rhetoric. He even advocated, under certain circumstances, admitting a hypothesis that we *expect *to fail

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

Gary R., list, "Good" is traditionally taken as meaning "valid" or "justified" when applied to an inference. Valid deductions can conclude in falsehoods by vice of falsehood among the premisses, and we can see both critical and methodeutical kinds of justification of an abductive inference

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

Ben wrote: "5.189 can't be regarded as a version, the best as Jerry R. has been urging, or otherwise, of the pragmatic maxim." Exactly. As Jon made clear, 5.189 has its value in critical logic and ought not be conflated with the PM. I have found Jerry's near obsession with 5.189 off putting so

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

Jon S., Gary R., Jerry R., list, I left one point murky; what I had failed to see clearly, until Jon S.'s remarks, was that 5.189 can't be regarded as a version, the best as Jerry R. has been urging, or otherwise, of the pragmatic maxim. - Best, Ben On 10/1/2016 11:20 AM, Benjamin Udell

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

Ben, Jon, List, Ben, you commented: "An abductive inference may be good and successful in terms of the economics of inquiry, even if it turns out to conclude in a falsehood, if it nevertheless helps research by either making it positively fruitful (think of all the hypotheses that positively

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

I left one point murky; what I had failed to see clearly, until Jon S.'s remarks, was that 5.189 can't be regarded as a version, the best as Jerry R. has been urging, or otherwise, of the pragmatic maxim. - Best, Ben On 10/1/2016 11:20 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: Jon S., Gary R., list, Jon,

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

Jon S., Gary R., list, Jon, you wrote, CP 5.189 can and does produce hypotheses that "explain the facts," yet are /not/ "capable of experimental verification," and thus are /not/ admissible for subsequent deductive explication and inductive evaluation. In other words, an abduction

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

Dear all, Perhaps I ought to point out the elephant in the room. Despite your admission that: "*any *abduction whose resulting hypothesis passes the test of the PM and (ultimately) the other two stages of inquiry is a *good *abduction" why do disagreements persist and why are disputants unable

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

Jon, List, You wrote: I think that the discussion over the last several days has also very helpfully clarified the distinction between logical critic and methodeutic. In particular, CP 5.189 falls under logical critic and pertains *only *to abduction, while the PM--like pragmat[ic]ism

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

Jon, Gary, list and friends, In response to all those words, I say to you: one two three... *C A B*... *CP 5.189*... *as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful suggestions* STRANGER: That the dialectical method is no respecter of persons, and does not set the great above the small, but

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

Gary R., List: Thanks for your kind words. I think that the discussion over the last several days has also very helpfully clarified the distinction between logical critic and methodeutic. In particular, CP 5.189 falls under logical critic and pertains *only *to abduction, while the PM--like

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

Jon, Helmut, List, Nice summary statement, Jon, which the quotation brings home. This discussion has been quite valuable for me as it clarified a matter which, as I noted in my initial post on the security/uberty question, has troubled me for some time. Perhaps most helpful was seeing that

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

Helmut, List: The justification of abduction/retroduction (by itself) falls under logical critic, rather than methodeutic. However, pragmat[ic]ism as methodeutic tells us how abduction/retroduction fits within a complete inquiry--the justified hypotheses that it produces are admitted or rejected

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

    Supplement: Maybe all about this is said already earlier in this thread. I am slow with catching up. Jon, list, yes. So I was wrong assuming, that talking about abduction implies a deduction. Only talking about the justification of abduction (plausibility) does. Obviously abduction is

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

Jon, list, yes. So I was wrong assuming, that talking about abduction implies a deduction. Only talking about the justification of abduction (plausibility) does. Obviously abduction is something personal/individual that escapes methodeutics. So the problem of

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

Helmut: I think that you are getting at what Peirce meant by *plausibility*, which indeed pertains to the justification of abduction. In your example, it is *plausible* that these white beans are from this bag that contains only white beans. On the other hand, it would obviously *not *be

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

Jon, list,   you are of course right. I might replace the conclusion in the second statement with: "So for the observer person it seems possible that...". This would be a true statement, but still not a deduction, because the conclusion is not based on the premisses. I think, a deduction about

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

Helmut, list: I think you’ve said something profound. You said: "So making an abduction is not pragmaticism (given that pragmaticism is deductive). But talking about abduction is, because it includes a deduction." I think listers will object to your “abduction is not pragmaticism because

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

Helmut, List: I appreciate the comment, but I do not think that your example qualifies as a genuine deduction. It is not *necessarily* true that "it is possible that they are from the bag"; it might, in fact, be *impossible *for some reason, presumably having nothing to do with the color of the

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

Dear list members, I am not sure if this helps: I think, to say: "All beans from the bag are white, these beans are white, so these beans are from the bag" is an abduction. But to say: "All beans from the bag are white, these beans are white, so it is possible that they are from the bag" is sort

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

Hi everyone: "We can then (inductively) experiment with actual diamonds to find out whether, in fact, this is the case." Where is genuine doubt? Thanks, Jerry R On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Clark, List: > > As (hopefully) clarified in

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

Clark, List: As (hopefully) clarified in my subsequent messages, I am not saying that the PM itself is "deductive"; rather, it serves as the rule for admitting hypotheses to the deductive stage of inquiry once they have been produced and justified--because they plausibly account for the facts--by

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

Clark, list: I've had the same difficulty, myself, except I cannot make up my mind since I'm not even certain of the maxim to which is being referred. For instance, here is an even different pragmatic maxim; one that calls attention to making the speech outside of ourselves: "I have long ago

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

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > The PM pertains primarily to deduction (explication), not abduction; which is > why it contributes to security, but not to uberty. I wonder if another way > to highlight the distinction is to assign the

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

Jon, list: You pull that quote as if everything is self-evident. Yet, you never provide that certain maxim that is posed by pragmatism, as if that is understood. Yet, if you pose it, state it clearly, say it explicitly, express it out loud; you will discover that it is the wrong maxim. "...if

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

List: This passage conveniently lays out Peirce's views on what we have been discussing today. CSP: If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism you will see that it is nothing else than the question of the logic of abduction. That is, pragmatism proposes a certain maxim which, if

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

Jon, Gary, list: I do not see how we're back to anything at all about a complete inquiry when you have not spoken a whit on "beauty, upon moral virtue, or upon abstract truth, the three things that alone raise Humanity above Animality'" Best, Jerry R On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jon Alan

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

Gary R., List: GR: As for your intriguing suggestion that the PM might better be placed in critical logic rather than methodeutic, well, I'll have to think about that. I'd be very interested, meanwhile, in what others on the list may think of your suggestion, one which I don't recall previously

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

Jon, List, Reading over our several posts on this topic it appears that we are in the main in agreement that the distinction between the PM and pragmaticism in its fullness ought not be conflated as, apparently, Houser has to some extent, for example, in his misquoting Peirce in the essay,

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

Gary R., List: GR: But, in fact, Peirce *does* call the pragmatic maxim (PM) the "rule of pragmatism" in this essay. Yes, but my point is that he does *not *call the PM the "rule of abduction"; so again, I am positing a distinction between Peirce's pragmatism (i.e., pragmaticism) as the "logic

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

Dear all: It would help this conversation if you state clearly which maxim of pragmatism to which you are referring. Because this one following...there is a severe flaw in it: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to

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

Jon, List, Jon, I think I am *tending* to agree with your conclusion, that "Houser's comment wrongly equates pragmatism with its maxim, when the latter is only one aspect of pragmat[ic]ism as a whole." On the other hand, you wrote: JS: "I have been mulling this over, and I keep landing on the

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

Jon, list: You said: "As you hinted, Houser's comment wrongly equates pragmatism with its maxim, when the latter is only one aspect of pragmat[ic]ism as a whole." What do you mean by *pragmaticism as a whole*? Is there a complete maxim of pragmaticism that is different from a complete maxim of

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

Gary R., List: GR: But what Peirce actually says in the article is that it is the pragmatic maxim, the "rule of 'pragmatism'," which "certainly aids our approximation to [the] security of reasoning. But it does not contribute to the uberty of reasoning, which far more calls for solicitous care"

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

relations between signs, object and interpretants that we need to focus our >>> attention on in each of these areas of semiotics can be used to help steer >>> the inquiries. When it comes to matters of the assurance of different forms >>> of inference, I am drawn to the idea

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

’s estimations of plausibility of the undue effects of >> bias and prejudice are something that one might seek to improve on an >> incremental basis. What is more, the manner in which one might assure that >> the door of inquiry is kept open might vary from something like a

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

Clark, list, I usually worry when I see a quote of myself from 2007 - I was often very wordy in those days but I didn't do too badly in that one. I think that I still agree with the things in your quote of me, except the first thing, that economy is as important as chance in the world.

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

Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Benjamin Udell [baud...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 12:15 PM To:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jeff D., Gary R., list, I assume we're discussi

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

> Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > ------ > *From:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 9:37 AM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > On Sep 26, 2016, at

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

that, he has written quite a lot on what it is to do the first or > second sort of thing well or poorly. > > > --Jeff > > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > > ---

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

s--and I'll see what might be done to make the diagrams clearer. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Benjamin Udell [baud...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 12:15

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

: Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:37 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu<mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: I, too, assume we're disc

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

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > I, too, assume we're discussing what Peirce thought, rather than what we > variously may think for our own parts. I do think it’s worth asking how the argument itself fares given the social changes

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

nard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com><mailto:baud...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:50 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L]

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

t; the surprising character fades the more worthy it is of our confidence does > suggest that the fit is one with a large system of our other beliefs that > are relatively well settled as habits--and that the hypothesis is > *sufficient* to explain all that was, initially, quite surprisi

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

was, initially, quite surprising. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 *From:* Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:50 AM *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu *Subject:* Re: [PEI

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

ll <baud...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 9:50 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jeff D., Gary R., list, Your quote from "A Neglected Argument..." bears on plausibility, which Peirce elsewhere in the same essay discus

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

Jeff D., Gary R., list, Your quote from "A Neglected Argument..." bears on plausibility, which Peirce elsewhere in the same essay discusses as natural, instinctual simplicity; it bears upon assurance by instinct; I don't find him discussing methodeutical justification (e.g., testability) of

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

ity (o) 928 523-8354 ____________ From: Gary Richmond Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Ben, Jeff, List, Ben, I think your 'quibble' is well taken, and I agree with your analysis. Jeff, I'm

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

ruth of its Divine character. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 *From: Gary Richmond Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:56 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's T

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

> On Sep 23, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eugene Halton wrote: > > And what if you allowed yourself to enter the realm of musement > and found your Indo-European or related noun-centered language left behind? A > realm where your noun-God, your concept-God, could

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

..@nd.edu> > *To:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 4:24 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > I sent the post below on Sept 19 when there was some discussion of > musement, but it appears it did not go thru so I'

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

Excellent, Eugene - that's exactly how Peirce described the dynamic semiosis of the universe/Mind. Edwina - Original Message - From: Eugene Halton To: Peirce List Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking I sent the post

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

effrey.down...@nau.edu Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking   Jeff, list, you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little t

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

I sent the post below on Sept 19 when there was some discussion of musement, but it appears it did not go thru so I'm posting again. Apologies if it did go thru the first time. Gene H …and musement musings… Peirce’s “The play of musement” is a beautiful way of putting it. It is a

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

http://h.raul...@gmx.de> > *To:* jeffrey.down...@nau.edu > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <http://gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM > *Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > >

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

nau.edu Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking   Jeff, list, you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little to me--so long as w

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

irce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM > *Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Jeff, list, > you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals > "Nature" or "God" ma

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

: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jeff, list, you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little to me--so long as we grow to appreciate the Beauty, Goodnes

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

> Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > From: Gary Richmond [gary.richm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:56 AM > To: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Ben, Jeff,

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

ue of the alternate hypotheses? --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354<tel:928%20523-8354> From: Jon Alan Schmidt [jonalanschm...@gmail.com<mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com&g

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

is a sustained effort to show that neither of these is > the case. As such, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Is the same true of the > alternate hypotheses? > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University

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

--Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt [jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:24 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEI

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

head> Dear Ben N., list, Let's also thank Gary Fuhrman for being more optimistic than I was about whether past CD-ROM customers could still obtain online subscriptions to InteLex even today. I subsequently contacted InteLex and the person there confirmed that that is still the policy.

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

> On Sep 22, 2016, at 3:09 AM, Ben Novak wrote: > > I went to Craigslist where I found a laptop with a Vista operating system, > called the seller, and drove 50 miles to test it out. It worked like a charm. > For $70, and a hundred miles worth of gasoline, I have my

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

d > in a particular egregious kind of way--or so it seems to me. > > --Jeff > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > From: Edwina Taborsky [tab

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

om: Edwina Taborsky [tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:53 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jeffrey - I have a few problems with your analysis. I'll comment below: - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard

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

du> > To: "Peirce-L" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:06 PM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > > Hello Jon, List, > > The argument you are trying to reconstruct could be fleshed out more full

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

Jeffrey - I have a few problems with your analysis. I'll comment below: - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> To: "Peirce-L" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:06 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRC

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

Edwina, List: ET: The format of the argument may be logical but its conclusion may be irrelevant; i.e., it may be logical but its content may be false. Of course--just like every scientific hypothesis. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur

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

y Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt [jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:24 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking List: Based on what Peirce wrote in R 842 ... CS

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

, 2016 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking List: Based on what Peirce wrote in R 842 ... CSP: Taking the general description of it as a minor premiss, and a certain theory of logic as a major premiss, it will follow by a simple syllogism that the humble

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

List: Based on what Peirce wrote in R 842 ... CSP: Taking the general description of it as a minor premiss, and a certain theory of logic as a major premiss, it will follow by a simple syllogism that the humble argument is logical and that consequently whoever acknowledges its premisses need

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

Ben N., list, Ben N., you wrote, It is not worth going further into why--unless someone knows a way to get around the disabling of Intelex CDs as a result of their change. [end quote] The old InteLex CD-ROMs became unusable not because of being disabled by InteLex but because of

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

2016 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear List: Fifteen or sixteen years ago, I had the Intelex Past Masters version of the works of Peirce, and often have reason to recall a passage where Peirce explicitly talks about the importance--necessity-

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

- From: Ben Novak To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 6:09 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear List: Fifteen or sixteen years ago, I had the Intelex Past Masters version of the works of Peirce, and often have reason to recall a passage where

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

…and musement musing… Peirce’s “The play of musement” is a beautiful way of putting it. It is a portal to a way of opening one’s body soul mind to experience. But what if, on entering that realm of spontaneity and freedom through the “play of musement” portal, one begins to realize

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

: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear List: Fifteen or sixteen years ago, I had the Intelex Past Masters version of the works of Peirce, and often have reason to recall a passage where Peirce explicitly talks about the importance--necessity--of belief to the conduct of science

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

m your browser to your clipboard and paste it into an email message (if the message will get sent in HTML format). Gary f. From: Ben Novak [mailto:trevriz...@gmail.com] Sent: 20-Sep-16 06:10 To: Peirce-L <peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

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

ares in it'... >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> >> *Cc:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM

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

lt;PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Dear list: > > > > What you say sounds all well and good but I’m confused. > > > > In a description for the abductive proc

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

Clark, Edwina, list, Clark, you wrote, "Later process theologians were explicitly influenced by Peirce despite many of Peirce’s writings being difficult to find at the time." It seems a good bet that this was because Charles Hartshorne, who, along with Paul Weiss, edited the Collected

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

because the majority shares in it'... Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear list: What you say sounds all well and good but I’m

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

Dear list: What you say sounds all well and good but I’m confused. In a description for the abductive process, an inadequate version can be given: “The grass is wet, therefore, it must have rained last night. For *if *it rained last night, *then* the grass ought to be wet.” So, if

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

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Clark- thanks for your very nice outline of the NA - I certainly agree with > your view, that as Chiasson says, it's not just about a 'belief in God', > because it's not deductive but is, as noted, abductive.

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

Brown's Laws of Form. He does fit in with Peircean thought. Edwina - Original Message - From: Mary Libertin To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Clark Goble ; Peirce-L Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking I agree with Chiasson's

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

om');> > *To:* Peirce-L <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU');> > *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 10:50 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > > On Sep 18, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <ja

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

, in my reading, require a God, for ethics. Edwina - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking On Sep 18, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.

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

Edwina, List: ET: A key factor in her analysis, with its focus on thought processes, is that it permits atheism - while retaining all thought processes. I suspect that Jon's interpretation doesn't permit such a result. I am not sure what to make of this comment. I suppose that it depends on

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

:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 9:27 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Mine does. > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU > > On Mon, Sep 19, 20

  1   2   3   >