Gene, list,
Gene thanks for putting the time and effort into this post. You have most
certainly addressed my criticisms that leading to your conclusion:
EH: Again, I deeply admire Peirce’s vast philosophy. But I also abhor the
narrow-mindedness of these types of private beliefs he seems to have
Dear list,
It is, then, in the nature of the good man to do injustice voluntarily, and
of the bad man to do it involuntarily, that is, if the good man has a good
soul.
Then he who voluntarily errs and does disgraceful and unjust acts, Hippias,
if there be such a man, would be no other than th
Dear Gary R.,
Sorry that I misconstrued your criticism earlier, that it was
not about potential catastrophe but about whether “greed, power, and
especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals” are
features of actually existing science and technology rather than externa
Gene, Edwina, Kirsti, list
Gene wrote:
EH: Regarding the potential for catastrophe, Gary R. stated, “that you
would, however, find it difficult to find in Peirce very much support for
your thesis.”
The potential for catastrophe (regarding which I fully agree with you) was
not the 'thesis' that
is not much different from (though more specific
>> than) yours or Peirce’s. And she presents an alternative economics which is
>> much more consistent with current ecological sciences (and, I might add,
>> with social justice).
>>
>> If science in general is so congenial
List,
I second Gene's views. A most important post.A most important CSP quote!
Kirsti Määttänen
Eugene Halton kirjoitti 5.3.2018 23:01:
Dear Gary R.
You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is
a problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by
“the
I might add,
> with social justice).
>
> If science in general is so congenial to the political powers that
> currently be in the U.S., why are they so eager to muzzle scientists, take
> down climate change websites, etc.?
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> } What is now proved was
Turning Signs* gateway
>
>
>
> *From:* Eugene Halton
> *Sent:* 5-Mar-18 16:01
> *To:* Peirce List
> *Subject:* Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital
> importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason
>
>
>
> Dear Gary R.
>
:01
To: Peirce List
Subject: Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance,"
was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason
Dear Gary R.
You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a
problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of
Dear Gary R.
You mention the problem of greed, Gary, denying that it is a
problem of science and claiming that it is a misuse of science by “the
world’s power players,” ie., outsiders to science. You say, “Peirce himself
almost certainly did find the essential “wicked problems” to be a
(: Correction: Decades, not centuries :)
List,
I would distinguish between science, technology, and technology application. I think, most of what might be called dataism, big data, smart this and smart that, is merely technology and its application.
I guess there are up- and downsides
List,
I would distinguish between science, technology, and technology application. I think, most of what might be called dataism, big data, smart this and smart that, is merely technology and its application.
I guess there are up- and downsides. Blockchain technology may be very helpful for
Would a one who thinks universally not be a world spectator who agrees with
Pinker and others that things actually are improving? No conspiracy there.
Peirce might have been in the camp derisively called globalist if it aimed
at a world where greed is reined in and agapaic things are not scoffed at
"world spectator"?
I've never heard such a thing. That sounds crazy.
Does anyone else know what it is and why it would even belongs on this list?
Best,
Jerry R
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> Since you message is posted both to the list and to me and seemingly
Jerry,
Since you message is posted both to the list and to me and seemingly in
response to my last post, I'd like to know what in the world this
"conspiracy" you allude to is? And what do you mean by "world spectator"?
You haven't contextualize your strange remarks whatsoever, so I have no
idea wh
Dear list,
That sounds like conspiracy.
Surely there is a better story to be told..
"world spectator." It is he who decides, by having an idea of the whole,
whether, in any single, particular event, progress is being made.
Best,
Jerry R
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Gary Richmond
Gene, list,
You concluded:
EH: The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for
deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science
and technology, but are essential features of the system, despite the many
admirable individuals within it. That is why actuall
Dear Gary R.,
Yes, thanks, you understood my critique and likely difference of
opinion.
From my point of view your response, like that of many Peirceans, and
sci-tech proponents more generally, takes an ideal of what science and
technology should be as an excuse to deny their actual compl
Stephen. list,
SR: I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of
reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your
reading of the lectures is in question.
While the 1898 Cambridge lecture series--which Kirsti explicitly referred
to--doesn't expre
Gene, list,
Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive
results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be
applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)"
Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,
overpop
I think K. was referring to Peirce's "despair" about the application of
reason by the bulk of humanity in this single passage. I don't think your
reading of the lectures is in question. It would be fairly easy to go
through CP and pick and choose a small quilt of expressions that amount to
a sort o
Kirsti, list,
You'll have to give me and the list reasons for your saying this:
KS: I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
views on science and vitally important matters.
First, I have no idea what you mean by Peirce's "despair." I don't see any
"despair" express
There is ambivalence running through Peirce which is vitiated by an
academic exegetical approach which ignores such passages. It has all sorts
of ramifications including the present political divide between what we
call populism and establishment. Peirce was genuinely not liked by his own
ilk and f
Gary R: "Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive
results of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be
applied to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.)"
Actually Gary, the jury is still out on that one. Ask the dying,
overpopulated earth.
Gary R.
I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true
views on science and vitally important matters.
The issue should be rethougth, I believe.
Kirsti
Gary Richmond kirjoitti 2.3.2018 22:41:
Stephen quoted Peirce:
_We employ twelve good men and true to decide a qu
Sorry. I should have said practical reasoning. It seemed obvious enough. I
shall write context twenty times, :) Here is the entire section with the
proper designation.
* 626. But in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it
is very easy to exaggerate the importance of ratiocinati
26 matches
Mail list logo
