Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-30 Thread kirstima
Gary, Is it truly possible to just by defining to make oneself into strictly separate parts? An interesting question. Nevertheless, this discussion does not deserve continuation. All your points have become quite clear. With the undertones. Kirsti Gary Richmond kirjoitti 25.9.2017 05:00:

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Jerry - I'll just reply this once and then won't comment again as we are moving into red herring terrain. You wrote: Is this opening flourish a case of CSP style? or hubris? or bragging? or sophistry? My comment is that: 'Style' in itself has no meaning. It requires

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > since you originally defined Peirce's style as possibly a 'hubris style, a > bragging style, a sophist style'. Edwinia: Your assertion is not true. Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Jerry, list - Sorry, but I don't understand your comment. I didn't say that Peirce claimed that he would analyze fallacious logic using fallacious logic - and, I don't see that Peirce made that suggestion either. As for your conclusion that ' this style is common among

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
> On Sep 25, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's general > Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining that he was going to > explore fallacious logic, using a key example. I don't think that one

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread gnox
List, In case there are other subscribers besides Gene who would prefer to read this Lowell lecture in bigger chunks, and don’t have a copy of EP2 handy, I’ve put up a page on my website that gives the whole text from the beginning to the part most recently posted to the list. The link to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread John F Sowa
On 9/25/2017 11:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: I consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's general Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining that he was going to explore fallacious logic, using a key example. I agree. Muhammad Ali did a lot of bragging. But he

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread Edwina Taborsky
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I consider that the initial quotation was simply Peirce's general Introduction to his anticipated analysis, explaining that he was going to explore fallacious logic, using a key example. I don't think that one can discuss

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-25 Thread Eugene Halton
I agree with Kirsti and Jerry: IS THIS OPENING FLOURISH A CASE OF CSP STYLE? OR HUBRIS? OR BRAGGING? OR SOPHISTRY? Commenting with these questions is sufficient, given that the initial Peirce quotation was simply insufficient to provide genuine discussion. The Lowell lecture introductory 1.1

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-24 Thread Gary Richmond
Kirsti, List, I really can't say that I understand what your complaint is. Your post began with and highlighted the snippet pointed to ​. Here it is exactly as it appears in your post​ : List, I agree with Jerry. Kirsti > > IS THIS OPENING FLOURISH A CASE OF CSP STYLE? OR HUBRIS? OR

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-24 Thread kirstima
Gary R. You misread my message. If it seemed as especially pointing at the snippet you took up, it has been unintentional. As a list manager your concern on the snippet is understandable. However, as an approach by a list manager, I must say I do not feel good about the way you expressed

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-24 Thread Gary Richmond
Kirsti, Jerry, Gary F, list, Kirsti, you wrote that you "agree with Jerry" and pointed to this snippet from his message: * "Is this opening flourish a case of CSP style? or hubris? or bragging? or sophistry?"* But Jerry has here offered 4 *possibilities of interpreting* the opening comments by

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-24 Thread kirstima
List, I agree with Jerry. Kirsti Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 24.9.2017 22:41: List, Gary: Thanks, Gary for initiating a fresh informative stream. It seems that how one interprets this opening rhetoric stance (“hook”) is rather dependent on the number of symbols systems ( linguistic,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-24 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List, Gary: Thanks, Gary for initiating a fresh informative stream. It seems that how one interprets this opening rhetoric stance (“hook”) is rather dependent on the number of symbols systems ( linguistic, musical, mathematical, chemical … ) one can use to communicate with others. This

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell lecture 1.1

2017-09-24 Thread gnox
Peirce begins his lecture series with a 'hook,' warning of an intellectual disease which is likely to spread through all of science if not nipped in the bud. The source of the disease is "a false notion about reasoning," and the practitioners of science are vulnerable to it because many of them