Re: [peirce-l] A new dissertation on Walker Percy and Charles Peirce
Excellent capsule summary of Van Fraassen. I would only add that much of the book is devoted to exploring the question of how science can rationally progress through conceptual revolutions when the post revolutionary view is irrational according to the pre-revolution view. Very engaging discussion which draws an analogy between the sola scriptura arguments of the reformation and counter reformation and the sola experientia views of the classical empiricists. I think there is a lot of natural affinity between Van Fraassen and Peirce, but only on the level of what Van Fraassen would call a "stance." The basic orientation to the world seems quite similar. But even to a Peircean dabbler like myself it is clear that, as you point out, the two diverge widely in how they categorize experience and modes of understanding. Infallibilism in Catholicism extends beyond papal infallibility, of course, starting with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and biblical texts. The reason why it ends up being purely theoretical is that it stems from a metaphor of the church as vine and branches, and the hierarchy of the church corresponding to that structure. The various forms of Catholic infallibilism restate the idea that unanimity among the nodes (if you will) at each level of the hierarchy produces infallibility--whether the many bishops (achieved in the rare ecumenical councils), the one pope (achieved in the even rarer ex cathedra statements), the millions of the faithful (achieved only in the eschaton). But the rub is that other Catholic doctrine that the mystical church--the true membership of the elect--does not correspond to the earthly membership of a certain organization headquartered in Rome. Traditional Romans don't generally like this presentation, but will usually cop to some form of it if pressed. The practical reality that guides the views of catholics is the historical tradition from which the full meaning of doctrine emerges over time. Infallibilism ends up meaning little more than that the present elucidation of doctrine has to be consonant with its historical past. But it can never achieve a perfected list or a final declaration in precise language. Again, Romans won't be keen on this statement, not because they don't agree with it, but because they feel it encourages gratuitous novelty or departure from the virtue of obedience, which is critical for the continued progress of that historical tradition. That latter view may strike the modern ear as retrograde, but upon examination, it probably corresponds almost exactly to the disappointment many of us feel in the failure of the general public to accept the reality of evolution or global warming. Most individuals will never be in a position to validate climate data, but we feel they should conform themselves to the views of the people in a position to do so, rather than invent conspiracies or inject new, unwarranted explanations that serve to derail the progress of the scientific tradition. JA On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > ** > James, list, > > Theology, Catholic or otherwise, is hardly my forte, and I find on first > look into infallibilism (i.e., Wikipedia) that Catholic infallibilism is > itself largely a theoretical idea, like you say, and the list of supposedly > infallible statements is a matter of debate, but the Immaculate Conception > and the Assumption of Mary seem widely agreed upon as examples. Papal > infallibilism became official only in the 19th Century and could grow. > Peirce would seem likely to take the long view even if he did not already > on principle prefer to stick to his fallibilist (and therefore tychist and > synechist) principles; his allowance for practical infallibility along the > line of something like that which is called "moral certainty" seems as far > as he could go. > > I was barely acquainted with van Fraassen - a paper of his is among those > linked at Arisbe. So this mornng I've been reading that paper > http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/docs-publd/FalseHopesEpist.pdf"The > False Hopes of Traditional Epistemology" Philosophy > and Phenomenological Research Vol. LX, No. 2, March 2000. Peirceans will > find something to argue with in his views of scientific method, induction, > and abduction (he seems not to glimpse a cenoscopic level logically between > math and special sciences). Also, FWIW in my semi-Peircean view, > application of the distinction between _*ordo essendi*_ and _*ordo > cognoscendi*_ would invert, along at least one axis, van Fraassen's > epistemological landscape and abduction's place in it. On the other hand > his view that values (and virtues) matter in the formation of scientific > understanding and his anti-foundationalism suggest congeniality with > Peirce. He has an engaging style and one feels that one can hear him > talking, then one wants to start talking too! More by van Fraassen is at > http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/index.h
Re: [peirce-l] A New Dissertation on Walker Percy and Charles Peirce
Peircers, Synchroncity In The Asynchronous World (SITAW) !!! We recently had a discussion of related issues on PolicyMic ... http://www.policymic.com/articles/why-the-pope-can-t-be-tried-at-the-icc#comment-16229 Regards, Jon Benjamin Udell wrote: James, list, Theology, Catholic or otherwise, is hardly my forte, and I find on first look into infallibilism (i.e., Wikipedia) that Catholic infallibilism is itself largely a theoretical idea, like you say, and the list of supposedly infallible statements is a matter of debate, but the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary seem widely agreed upon as examples. Papal infallibilism became official only in the 19th Century and could grow. Peirce would seem likely to take the long view even if he did not already on principle prefer to stick to his fallibilist (and therefore tychist and synechist) principles; his allowance for practical infallibility along the line of something like that which is called "moral certainty" seems as far as he could go. I was barely acquainted with van Fraassen - a paper of his is among those linked at Arisbe. So this mornng I've been reading that paper http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/docs-publd/FalseHopesEpist.pdf "The False Hopes of Traditional Epistemology" Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LX, No. 2, March 2000. Peirceans will find something to argue with in his views of scientific method, induction, and abduction (he seems not to glimpse a cenoscopic level logically between math and special sciences). Also, FWIW in my semi-Peircean view, application of the distinction between _ordo essendi_ and _ordo cognoscendi_ would invert, along at least one axis, van Fraassen's epistemological landscape and abduction's place in it. On the other hand his view that values (and virtues) matter in the formation of scientific understanding and his anti-foundationalism suggest congeniality with Peirce. He has an engaging style and one feels that one can hear him talking, then one wants to start talking too! More by van Fraassen is at http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/index.html , and there I found his synopsis http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/SynopsisES.htm of his book The Empirical Stance. There he sketches his argument that "empiricists need not embrace a secular orientation" and says that he attempts to provide a more positive content for other orientations. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: James Albrecht To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] A new dissertation on Walker Percy and Charles Peirce Worth taking a look at Bas Van Fraasen's "The Empirical Stance" related to the progress of inference and the secular/religious outlook. (Wikipedia says van fraasen is a catholic convert, which puts an interesting light on the work.) Also seems worth pointing out that catholic "infallibilism" is a purely theoretical construct even in the context of catholic theology: no one can tell you with precision what the exact set of infallible teachings are, such that the practical reality of the idea has subsisted entirely in a historical conformation of the individual to a teaching tradition. On Friday, February 24, 2012, Benjamin Udell wrote: Stephen, Gary, Jon, Ken, list, I don't know whether it supports Stephen Rose's point or not, but Peirce once said that he would embrace Roman Catholicism if it espoused _practical_ infallibility instead of _theoretical_ infallibility. See "C. S. Peirce an G. M. Searle: The Hoax of Infallibilism" by Jaime Nubiola, Cognitio IX/1 (2008), 73-84, at http://www.unav.es/users/PeirceSearle.html . In at least one other writing (I forget which), Peirce said that fallibilism is about propositions about _experience_, or something much like that. I don't know whether that involves a variation in Peirce's viewpoint or merely of perspective and terminology. More information on the dissertation: "Walker Percy and the Magic of Naming: The Semeiotic Fabric of Life" by Karey L. Perkins Dissertation information including abstract: http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/english_diss/76/ Even shorter link than Jon's* to the PDF: http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=english_diss *Competitiveness in link-shortening benefits the polis as a whole. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: "Gary Richmond" - academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/ word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
Re: [peirce-l] A new dissertation on Walker Percy and Charles Peirce
James, list, Theology, Catholic or otherwise, is hardly my forte, and I find on first look into infallibilism (i.e., Wikipedia) that Catholic infallibilism is itself largely a theoretical idea, like you say, and the list of supposedly infallible statements is a matter of debate, but the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary seem widely agreed upon as examples. Papal infallibilism became official only in the 19th Century and could grow. Peirce would seem likely to take the long view even if he did not already on principle prefer to stick to his fallibilist (and therefore tychist and synechist) principles; his allowance for practical infallibility along the line of something like that which is called "moral certainty" seems as far as he could go. I was barely acquainted with van Fraassen - a paper of his is among those linked at Arisbe. So this mornng I've been reading that paper http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/docs-publd/FalseHopesEpist.pdf "The False Hopes of Traditional Epistemology" Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LX, No. 2, March 2000. Peirceans will find something to argue with in his views of scientific method, induction, and abduction (he seems not to glimpse a cenoscopic level logically between math and special sciences). Also, FWIW in my semi-Peircean view, application of the distinction between _ordo essendi_ and _ordo cognoscendi_ would invert, along at least one axis, van Fraassen's epistemological landscape and abduction's place in it. On the other hand his view that values (and virtues) matter in the formation of scientific understanding and his anti-foundationalism suggest congeniality with Peirce. He has an engaging style and one feels that one can hear him talking, then one wants to start talking too! More by van Fraassen is at http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/index.html , and there I found his synopsis http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/SynopsisES.htm of his book The Empirical Stance. There he sketches his argument that "empiricists need not embrace a secular orientation" and says that he attempts to provide a more positive content for other orientations. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: James Albrecht To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] A new dissertation on Walker Percy and Charles Peirce Worth taking a look at Bas Van Fraasen's "The Empirical Stance" related to the progress of inference and the secular/religious outlook. (Wikipedia says van fraasen is a catholic convert, which puts an interesting light on the work.) Also seems worth pointing out that catholic "infallibilism" is a purely theoretical construct even in the context of catholic theology: no one can tell you with precision what the exact set of infallible teachings are, such that the practical reality of the idea has subsisted entirely in a historical conformation of the individual to a teaching tradition. On Friday, February 24, 2012, Benjamin Udell wrote: > Stephen, Gary, Jon, Ken, list, > > I don't know whether it supports Stephen Rose's point or not, but Peirce once > said that he would embrace Roman Catholicism if it espoused _practical_ > infallibility instead of _theoretical_ infallibility. See "C. S. Peirce an G. > M. Searle: The Hoax of Infallibilism" by Jaime Nubiola, Cognitio IX/1 (2008), > 73-84, at http://www.unav.es/users/PeirceSearle.html . > > In at least one other writing (I forget which), Peirce said that fallibilism > is about propositions about _experience_, or something much like that. I > don't know whether that involves a variation in Peirce's viewpoint or merely > of perspective and terminology. > > More information on the dissertation: > > "Walker Percy and the Magic of Naming: The Semeiotic Fabric of Life" by Karey > L. Perkins > Dissertation information including abstract: > http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/english_diss/76/ > Even shorter link than Jon's* to the PDF: > http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=english_diss > > *Competitiveness in link-shortening benefits the polis as a whole. > > Best, Ben > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Richmond" - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
