Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

I have refrained from commenting on this up until now because it is indeed
mostly unobjectionable, and my remarks on it would largely repeat what I
have already said on-List. Unfortunately, it reflects a characteristic
adversarial stance that is unwarranted since no one here (including
Bellucci) is "in favor of an extreme minimization of mathematics or even
its exclusion," nor are we seeking to "maintain a mistrust towards
mathematics and mathematicians."

Instead, like Peirce, we are simply *distinguishing *phaneroscopy from
mathematics, which does not entail *disconnecting *or *separating *phaneroscopy
from mathematics. Phaneroscopy *depends on* mathematics for principles, but
it is not *controlled by* nor *reducible to* mathematics. In particular, an
absolutely essential difference between them is that phaneroscopy is a
*positive
*science, while mathematics is a strictly *hypothetical *science. This is
perfectly consistent with Nathan Houser's conclusion that is favorably
quoted (twice) and which no one is disputing.

NH: These categories, though abstractable (prescindable) from experience,
are mathematical conceptions. Thus, firstness, secondness, and thirdness
constitute an important link between the a priori world of mathematics and
the contingent world of experience, at which juncture we find the ground of
phenomenology. (https://www.academia.edu/4253972/The_Form_of_Experience, p.
21)


On a more agreeable note, I appreciate the suggestion that phaneroscopy
should draw from not only formal logic as the first branch of mathematics,
but also its other two branches that have to do with discrete series and
continua. This is consistent with something that Richard Kenneth Atkins
highlights in his two papers on "Broadening Peirce's Phaneroscopy" (
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.7.2.0001,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/pluralist.8.1.0097
), namely,
that the universal/formal categories are discrete and extensive, while the
particular/material categories are continuous and intensive. I might share
more in the future as I further digest them.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 6:20 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> List,
>
> Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications.
> (DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci's paper. | robert marty -
> Academia.edu
> 
>
>  also available on ResearchGate :
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354987042_Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Belluci's_paper
> 
>
> *Abstract :*
>
> The circumstances of the production of this critique show how important it
> is for a community to have venues for debate that bring together
> participants who play the game openly and fairly. That this is not
> sometimes the case should not be an obstacle. After specifying the precise
> circumstances that motivated my criticism, I developed it as objectively as
> possible, arguing as clearly as I could, scrupulously citing all my
> sources. I then drew some conclusions from it, thanks to which it finds, it
> seems to me, its whole meaning.
>
> __
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert Marty
>
> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
> Le mar. 28 sept. 2021 à 10:44, robert marty  a
> écrit :
>
>> List,
>>
>> I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed to
>> me eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He confirmed
>> receipt. However, I did not get any answer on a list characterized by
>> particularly vigilant participants quick to react to the slightest
>> deviation. I reject the idea that they have concerted to ignore my remarks
>> because this would be an unworthy attitude on the part of researchers,
>> peirceans moreover.  It would therefore be a rare case on this list of 
>> *approval
>> by default*. Besides, I remembered a French saying: "Qui ne dit mot
>> consent" (Who doesn't say a word, consents). I am therefore entitled to
>> consider today that my criticism is fully recognized as fair and
>> well-founded. This encourages me to publish it more widely and extend this
>> kind of analysis of the relationship to mathematics to other eminent
>> researchers in the Peircean community.
>>
>> Many thanks and best regards,
>>
>> Robert Marty
>>
>> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
>> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>>
>> Le lun. 20 sept. 2021 à 12:36, robert marty  a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> List, I remind the thread opened by  Phillys 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] necessity, probability, plausibility

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

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

I think that's an important point - that alienation from factual
reality. No matter what term you use for it,  as Robert Marty has
pointed out with his lattice of signs, any thought-process that is
alienated from the factual grounds of Secondness - moves into magical
thinking.

And in magical thinking, as Alice in Wonderland/Looking Glass and
also, all tyrannies have shown us - magical thinking can say anything
and everything. The problem develops when people accept these beliefs
as valid. And history has shown us that humans are extremely
susceptible to such type of 'thinking'. 

Edwina
 On Thu 30/09/21  8:19 PM , Thomas Gollier tgoll...@gmail.com sent:
 Helmet,
 I think what makes "possibility … special" with regard to the
other three is that it's a purely a priori (Thirdness without
Secondness) construct. This is what makes it so popular among
conspiracy theorists, and tying the other three to the legitimate
methods of argument makes that clear as well.
 Tom
 On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:48 AM Helmut Raulien < h.raul...@gmx.de
[1]> wrote:
 List,   There are are four traits of likeliness: Necessity,
probability, possibility, plausibility, but I think, that possibility
is special: It does not have a value, and it goes with the other
three, but merely with plausibility it goes hand in hand. With the
other two it is for granted. So I propose
"necessity-probabiliy-plausibility", assigned to the three kinds of
conclusion:   Deduction: It produces necessity, the value of
necessity is a binary integer-number- value, so not continuous: Yes
or no, or 1 or 0. It is comprehensible, therefore objective.  
Induction: It produces a probability, its value always is a quotient,
so of a rational number, so not continuous. An induction is
comprehensible, therefore objective. But it may be executed by an
individual who knows less, more, and/or different things than another
individual, thus having an individual result, so it is subjective as
well.   Abduction: It produces a hypothesis, a subjective
possibility, whose value plausibility can only be estimated. The
value plausibility nevertheless is gradual, continuous, so of
irrational number. With abduction, this special kind of -in this
case- valued possibility, plausibility, is only subjective.   I think
it is important to understand, that hypotheses and their value of
plausibility are merely subjective. The subject of the plausibility
may, besides an individual, be a culture too. In former times and
cultures, as well as in some contemporary African cultures, e.g. the
reality of witchcraft was and sadly is highly plausible, other than
in our western culture(s). Not so long ago, in Germany extremely
murderous hypotheses were plausible. Plausibility should be handled
carefully, with a fire tongs.   Best, Helmut _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
 ► 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 [2] . 
 ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu [3] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE
of the message and nothing in the body.  More at
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html [4] .
 ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary
Richmond;  and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'h.raul...@gmx.de\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

[robert marty]

List,

Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications.
(DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci's paper. | robert marty -
Academia.edu


 also available on ResearchGate :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354987042_Critical_analysis_of_a_Francesco_Belluci's_paper


*Abstract :*

The circumstances of the production of this critique show how important it
is for a community to have venues for debate that bring together
participants who play the game openly and fairly. That this is not
sometimes the case should not be an obstacle. After specifying the precise
circumstances that motivated my criticism, I developed it as objectively as
possible, arguing as clearly as I could, scrupulously citing all my
sources. I then drew some conclusions from it, thanks to which it finds, it
seems to me, its whole meaning.

__

Regards,

Robert Marty



Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le mar. 28 sept. 2021 à 10:44, robert marty  a
écrit :

> List,
>
> I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed to me
> eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He confirmed receipt.
> However, I did not get any answer on a list characterized by particularly
> vigilant participants quick to react to the slightest deviation. I reject
> the idea that they have concerted to ignore my remarks because this would
> be an unworthy attitude on the part of researchers, peirceans moreover.  It
> would therefore be a rare case on this list of *approval by default*.
> Besides, I remembered a French saying: "Qui ne dit mot consent" (Who
> doesn't say a word, consents). I am therefore entitled to consider today
> that my criticism is fully recognized as fair and well-founded. This
> encourages me to publish it more widely and extend this kind of analysis of
> the relationship to mathematics to other eminent researchers in the
> Peircean community.
>
> Many thanks and best regards,
>
> Robert Marty
>
>
> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
>
>
> Le lun. 20 sept. 2021 à 12:36, robert marty  a
> écrit :
>
>> List, I remind the thread opened by  Phillys Chiasson, entitled "Another
>> perspective."
>>  In
>> this thread, Gary Richmond wrote
>>  :
>>
>> *"I had a similar experience teaching undergraduate students in critical
>> thinking courses. I found that it doesn't take formal logic -- although a
>> bit of commonsensism seems requisite -- and soon the simple, ordinary,
>> naive observation of the phaneron (or whatever one cares to call it)
>> reveals that qualities, interactions, and thought-signs are all that there
>> is. One doesn't require the reduction thesis, or valency theory, or
>> mathematical logic, or graph theory to see the trichotomic structure of the
>> world." [emphasize mine]*
>>
>> John Sowa  answers him
>> :
>>
>> Have you ever seen a diagram and understood its implications?   Have you
>> ever drawn a diagram to illustrate some point in your lectures?  If you did
>> either of these two activities, you were using and understanding a subset
>> of graph theory.  *But* *if you want to get beyond an eighth-grade
>> education, doing a bit of studying helps a lot. *[emphasize mine]
>>
>>
>>
>> *I fully agree with this opinion. (RM) *
>>
>> Following  Gary f  intervene signaling  another perspective
>>  :
>>
>>
>>
>> *"For another perspective on the roles of mathematics and logic in
>> phaneroscopic analysis, see Francesco Bellucci's 2015 paper at*:
>> https://www.academia.edu/11664897/Peirce_on_Phaneroscopical_Analysis
>> "
>>
>> Gary Richmond immediately declared his enthusiasm for this text and quoted
>> several extracts
>> .
>>
>> *"Thank you for posting this excellent short paper by Bellucci, without
>> doubt the best compact analysis I've read of "the roles of mathematics and
>> logic in phaneroscopic analysis."*
>>
>> I replied to GR that I did not share his enthusiasm for this text. But it
>> was an opinion. A real debate requires argumentation. So I took the time to
>> make a critical analysis of Belluci's paper (attached file). It is part of
>> a set of studies that I am making of the main texts available in the
>> literature about the bases of phaneroscopy and the practices associated
>> with