Gary R., Mike, Daniel, Jerry C., List: I have already expressed my misgivings about LLMs in other recent threads. Here are a couple of passages from Peirce's writings that are relevant to the thread topic, but no one (including the consulted chatbots) has quoted or cited them yet.
CSP: But there are other phenomena neither explicable by force nor, so far as appears, by the doctrine of chances. ... Another and more familiar phenomenon is the fact that some vines insist upon twisting to the right and others to the left. I believe some dynamical explanation of this has been proposed. But I cannot help doubting it, because it is impossible to state the difference between a right-handed and a left-handed screw without mention of four places on each. A very similar phenomenon in the mineral kingdom (though always originating, so far as is known, in living organisms, unless one, like Pasteur, picks out the right-handed and left-handed crystals one by one under a microscope) is that of the unsymmetrical carbon atom. A carbon atom has four bonds, or links, by which other atoms can be connected with it. If it has distinguishable atoms at all four bonds, the compound will generally turn the plane of polarized light passing through it either to the right or to the left, and there are always two varieties of the compound which differ not at all in their ordinary physical properties nor in their reactions with ordinary chemical bodies, but which turn the plane of polarization by exactly equal amounts in opposite directions, and behave altogether differently toward other bodies containing unsymmetrical carbon atoms. The formation in equal amounts of the right-handed and left-handed varieties is well accounted for by chance. Their separation is said to be due to organisms that feed on one and not on the other; and this must be explained by their own substance being of a right-handed or left-handed composition. How this is to be accounted for, unless by some chance in the course of the evolution of their race, I cannot guess. (EP 2:426-7, 1907) CSP: For forty years, that is, since the beginning of the year 1867, I have been constantly on the alert to find a *genuine *triadic relation--that is, one that does not consist in a mere collocation of dyadic relations, or the negative of such, etc. (I prefer not to attempt a perfectly definite definition)--which is not either an intellectual relation or a relation concerned with the less comprehensible phenomena of life. I have not met with one which could not reasonably be supposed to belong to one or other of these two classes. As a case as nearly brute and inorganic as any, I may mention the form of relationship involved in any screw-form which is definitely of the right-hand, or occidental, mode, or is definitely of the Japanese, or left-handed, mode. Such a relation exists in every carbon-atom whose four valencies are saturated by combination with four atoms of as many different kinds. But where the action of chance determines whether the screw be a right-handed or a left-handed one, the two forms will, in the long run, be produced in equal proportions, and the general result will not be definitely, or decisively, of either kind. We know no case of a definitely right-handed or left-handed screw-phenomenon, where the decision is not certainly due to the intervention of a definitely one-sided screw in the conditions of that decision, except in cases where the choice of a living being determines it; as when Pasteur picked out under the microscope the two kinds of crystals of a tartrate, and shoved those of one kind to the right and those of the other kind to the left. We do not know the mechanism of such choice, and cannot say whether it be determined by an antecedent separation of left-handed screws from right-handed screws or not. (CP 6.322, 1907) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 4:20 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, Daniel, Jerry, List, > > I agree with you, Mike, that we should be extremely dubious of LLMs as > they concern Peirce scholarship. Early on I found that none of those CP and > EP numbers I retrieved were correct, and that the quotes were for the most > part hallucinated. So AIs appear to me not yet well-suited for at least > certain types of research. Having said that, I still find value in using > LLM's for certain tasks. > > MB: My own view of Peirce scholarship going forward is that we must be > vigilant to separate direct quotes from speculations, the blurring of which > often happens to people as it does to large language models. That does not > mean that the speculations are wrong, but that they are just that: > speculations, even if reasonable and informed ones. > > Well said; and I concur. So here's another 'direct quote': > > But this is not the way in which science mainly progresses. It advances by > leaps; and the impulse for each leap is either some new observational > resource, or some novel way of reasoning about the observations. Such novel > way of reasoning might, perhaps, be considered as a new observational > means, since it draws attention to relations between facts which would > previously have been passed by unperceived. > > > [This is illustrated] by the discoveries of Pasteur,who began by applying > the microscope to chemistry. He picked out the right- and left-handed > crystals of tartaric acid. The two kinds have absolutely the same > properties except in regard to direction of rotation of the plane of > polarization and in their chemical relations to other "optically active" > bodies. Since this method of picking out individual crystals was so slow, > Pasteur looked for other means. [. . .] Pasteur began with the phylloxera. > He found it influenced the "optical activity" of the sugar. This pointed to > a ferment and therefore to an entity. He began to extend the doctrine to > other diseases. The medical men, dominated by the metaphysics of Claude > Bernard, raised all sorts of sophistical objections. But the method of > cultures and inoculation proved the thing, and here we see new ideas > connected with new observational methods and a fine example of the usual > process of scientific evolution. It is not by insensible steps. CP 1.109 > > > Now neither of the quotations I have so far located (I hope to find more) > prove that my, hopefully, "reasonable "and "informed" speculation on the > specific interest that Peirce had in 'handed-ness', 'screw-structures', and > chirality generally deeply influenced the whole of his philosophy. However, > near the conclusion of the first quote Peirce writes: > > "The three laws of motion draw no dynamical distinction between > right-handed and left-handed screws, and a mechanical explanation is an > explanation founded on the three laws of motion. There, then, is a physical > phenomenon absolutely inexplicable by mechanical action". CPS > > > One may recall that through the mid- to late 19th century most physicists > still conceived of nature in mechanistic and deterministic terms, viewing > the cosmos as a system governed by inviolable laws of motion. In the 1890s > Peirce identified this “necessitarian” machine-like view of the universe as > essentially the metaphysics of the old mechanical philosophy and argued > instead for an evolutionary, probabilistic, and relational cosmology. And > it seems to me that the discovery of chiral structures may very well have > influenced his views. As he wrote in the concluding sentence of the first > excerpt I gave, and immediately following the snipped quoted just above: > > This single instance [of chirality] suffices to overthrow the Corpuscular > [mechanical] Philosophy.” CP 5.65 > > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Gary, Daniel, >> >> I'm glad that Daniel also finds chirality a useful topic and Gary has >> provided a direct quote, but I was frankly dubious of the strength of the >> claims made in the ChatGPT response to Daniel's promptings. Since I often >> engage dueling LLMs, I asked a couple of comparative questions of Grok >> (Grok 4), reproduced in full below. >> >> I first asked: >> >> Can you find direct quotes from Charles Sanders Peirce's writings where >> he referred to chirality or reasoning using such terms as 'direction', >> 'handedness', 'arrow', or 'tendency'? If so, please provide the full, >> relevant quote and its citation. >> >> Grok's response: >> >> Quotes on Handedness/Chirality >> >> Charles Sanders Peirce discussed concepts related to chirality (though >> the term itself postdates him) in the context of scientific reasoning and >> the limitations of mechanical explanations of nature. He frequently used >> "handedness" and "direction" to describe optical isomers and their >> implications for philosophy of science, arguing that such asymmetries >> challenge purely mechanical views of the universe. >> >> 1. >> >> *On Pasteur's discovery of enantiomers as evidence against mechanical >> philosophy*: >> >> "Pasteur, one of the most remarkable men of genius of the nineteenth >> century, discovered that there are two modifications of the tartrate of >> lime and soda, which are absolutely identical in chemical and physical >> properties, excepting that they turn the plane of polarization in opposite >> directions. These two salts are related to one another as a right-handed >> screw is to a left-handed one. Pasteur separated them by crystallization. >> He picked out the right- and left-handed crystals of tartaric acid. The >> two >> kinds have absolutely the same properties except in regard to direction of >> rotation of the plane of polarization of light." >> >> *Citation*: C. S. Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories," *The Monist* >> 1, no. 2 (1891): 169 (reprinted in *Collected Papers of Charles >> Sanders Peirce*, vol. 6, para. 25, eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul >> Weiss [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935]). >> 2. >> >> *On optically active molecules and the inexplicability of handedness >> segregation under mechanical laws*: >> >> "Rare and strange cases of living action are welcomed by the >> mechanical philosopher as precisely those which he finds it most difficult >> to explain. Take the right-handed and left-handed screw-structures in >> optically active molecules. There are two varieties which twist the rays >> of >> light equally but in opposite directions. They have all the ordinary >> physical and chemical properties identical, except in certain faces of >> their crystals, often very minute, and in the interaction between >> substances of the same way of twisting and those of opposite ways. The >> living organism feeds upon one modification and destroys the other, >> because >> it contains optically active bodies. But how the original segregation of >> the levo- from the dextro-molecules ever came about is mechanically >> inexplicable. To suppose a nebula to have segregated itself into levo- and >> dextro-molecules is to suppose that mechanical action has been done >> without >> mechanical explanation. The three laws of motion make no distinction >> between right-handed and left-handed screws." >> >> *Citation*: C. S. Peirce, *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, >> vol. 5, para. 65 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). >> >> Quotes Using "Tendency" in Reasoning >> >> Peirce often used "tendency" in his logical and pragmatic framework, >> particularly to describe how concepts gain meaning through their practical >> effects and habits of action. This ties directly to his theory of reasoning >> as habit-formation. >> >> 1. >> >> *Defining pragmatism via the tendency of thought to enforce action*: >> >> "Pragmatism is the principle that every theoretical judgment in the >> indicative mood is a confused form of thought whose meaning, if any, lies >> exclusively in its tendency to enforce a corresponding practical maxim, >> expressible as a conditional sentence with an imperative for apodosis." >> >> *Citation*: C. S. Peirce, *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, >> vol. 5, para. 18 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). >> 2. >> >> *On the tendency of truths in reasoning toward belief*: >> >> "Truths have a greater tendency to get believed than falsities have." >> >> *Citation*: C. S. Peirce, *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, >> vol. 5, para. 431 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). >> >> Quotes Using "Direction" in Reasoning >> >> Peirce used "direction" metaphorically in discussions of logical >> orientation and the guidance of inquiry, emphasizing how reasoning can veer >> off course without proper principles. >> >> 1. >> >> *On losing direction in unfamiliar reasoning*: >> >> "The book could detail the principles which ought to guide our >> reasoning; but this would be of little use to those practical and routine >> minds which travel beaten paths. In fields of unfamiliar experience, where >> there are no checks from experience, even masculine intellects lose their >> orientation, waste their efforts in wrong directions, or go astray >> altogether, like a ship without rules of navigation." >> >> *Citation*: C. S. Peirce, *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, >> vol. 5, para. 368 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934). >> >> Notes on "Arrow" >> >> No direct quotes from Peirce's writings were found using the term "arrow" >> in the context of chirality or reasoning (e.g., as a metaphor for >> directionality or logical flow). Peirce did invent the logical NOR operator >> (now called "Peirce's arrow," symbolized as ↓), but he referred to it as >> "the ampheck" or simply described its function without using the word >> "arrow" in his texts. If you meant the logical symbol, it appears in his >> 1880 paper "On the Algebra of Logic" (*American Journal of Mathematics* >> 3: 15–57), where he notes its expressive completeness for all Boolean >> operations, but again, without verbal reference to "arrow." >> >> These examples illustrate Peirce's integration of scientific phenomena >> (like chirality) into philosophical reasoning, often to support his >> synechism (continuity) and anti-nominalist views. >> >> I then asked Grok: >> >> ChatGPT claims that Peirce had a quote: “reasoning has a direction in >> time, like the growth of a crystal or the motion of a living body.” I can >> find no reference or citation in my own sources for this quote. Can you >> confirm or deny any record of this quote or something similar? >> >> Grok's response: >> >> Confirmation of the Quote >> >> After conducting thorough searches across web sources, Wikiquote, and >> references to Peirce's collected works, I can confirm that there is *no >> record of Charles Sanders Peirce ever writing or saying the exact quote*: >> “reasoning has a direction in time, like the growth of a crystal or the >> motion of a living body.” It does not appear in any of his published >> writings, letters, or known manuscripts based on available digital archives >> and scholarly references. This suggests the quote may be a fabrication, >> misattribution, or hallucination by ChatGPT, possibly derived from loosely >> combining related ideas in Peirce's philosophy. >> >> However, Peirce did express *conceptually similar ideas* in his essay >> "The Law of Mind" (1892), where he discusses the "law of mind" (closely >> tied to reasoning and habit-formation) as having a unidirectional flow in >> time, contrasting it with physical laws. He also uses analogies involving >> crystallization (often negatively, as rigidifying thought) and the growth >> of mind (akin to organic processes in a living body) in nearby writings. >> These elements appear in proximity but never in the precise phrasing >> claimed. >> Similar Passages from Peirce's Writings >> >> Here are the most relevant excerpts that may have inspired the misquoted >> version, with full context and citations: >> >> 1. *On the direction of time in mental processes (law of >> mind/reasoning)*: "One of the most marked features about the law of >> mind is that it makes time to have a definite direction of flow from past >> to future. ... This makes one of the great contrasts between the law of >> mind and the law of physical force, where there is no more distinction >> between the two opposite directions in time than between moving northward >> and moving southward." *Citation*: Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Law >> of Mind," *The Monist* Vol. II, No. 4 (July 1892), p. 533 (reprinted >> in *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, vol. 6, para. 127, >> eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University >> Press, 1935]). >> 2. *On crystallization as an analogy for thought/reasoning >> (preventing further growth)*: "The law of habit exhibits a striking >> contrast to all physical laws in the character of its commands. A physical >> law is absolute. What it requires is an exact relation. ... On the other >> hand, no exact conformity is required by the mental law. Nay, exact >> conformity would be in downright conflict with the law; since it would >> instantly crystallise thought and prevent all further formation of habit." >> *Citation*: Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories," *The >> Monist* Vol. I, No. 2 (January 1891), p. 161 (reprinted in *Collected >> Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, vol. 6, para. 23, eds. Charles >> Hartshorne and Paul Weiss [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, >> 1935]). >> 3. *On the growth of mind (analogous to a living body's motion or >> development)*: "The one primary and fundamental law of mental action >> consists in a tendency to generalisation. Feeling tends to spread; >> connections between feelings awaken feelings; neighboring feelings become >> assimilated; ideas are apt to reproduce themselves. These are so many >> formulations of the one law of the growth of mind." *Citation*: >> Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories," *The Monist* >> Vol. I, No. 2 (January 1891), p. 161 (reprinted in *Collected Papers >> of Charles Sanders Peirce*, vol. 6, para. 21, eds. Charles Hartshorne >> and Paul Weiss [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935]). >> 4. *On evolutionary directionality (implying growth from vague to >> definite, like crystal or organic processes)*: "All the evolution we >> know of proceeds from the vague to the definite." *Citation*: Charles >> Sanders Peirce, *Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce*, vol. 6, >> para. 191 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935). >> >> These passages reflect Peirce's synechism (philosophy of continuity), >> where mental processes like reasoning involve irreversible temporal >> directionality, habit-formation, and growth—ideas that echo but do not >> match the claimed quote. If this originated from a specific secondary >> source or interpretation, it wasn't evident in the searches. For exhaustive >> verification, consulting physical editions of the *Collected Papers* or >> the Peirce Edition Project volumes might be worthwhile, but online >> scholarly resources show no trace of the exact wording. >> >> Similarly, there is no record that Peirce made or approximated the >> statement: "The world, like thought, is 'handed' — its processes grow, not >> mirror; they evolve, not repeat." >> >> I find all of this interesting both because the ChatGPT assertions are >> believable within the context (I think) of Peirce's thought, yet the >> ascribed quotes appear false or hallucinatory. To be kind, there are many >> Peirce researchers who have also made various assertions about what Peirce >> said or stated to support reasonable speculations, especially as it relates >> to more modern understandings of concepts like quantum mechanics or >> evolution or particle physics or cosmology, but those assertions often lack >> firm, direct links or quotes to Peirce's known writings. My own view of >> Peirce scholarship going forward is that we must be vigilant to separate >> direct quotes from speculations, the blurring of which often happens to >> people as it does to large language models. That does not mean that the >> speculations are wrong, but that they are just that: speculations, even if >> reasonable and informed ones. >> >> Best, Mike >> >> Mike, List, >> >> Should there be more discussion on chirality in Peirce's work I will try >> to find additional passages which speak to 'handedness" in Peirce's work. >> But since that would require quite a bit of research on my behalf, for now >> let me point to a key passage, one which decades ago convinced me that >> Peirce was interested in chirality and its implications for facets of >> science and philosophy. >> >> Here Peirce argues that the separation of right- and left-handed >> molecules cannot be explained by the laws of mechanics (which recognize no >> difference between right and left). He concludes that there being such >> asymmetry refutes the “Corpuscular Philosophy," being the view that all >> phenomena are reducible to motion of particles obeying mechanical laws. >> >> “Such, for example, are the right-handed and left-handed screw-structures >> of the molecules of those bodies which are said to be ‘optically active.’ >> Of every such substance there are two varieties, or as the chemists call >> them, two modifications, one of which twists a ray of light that passes >> through it to the right, and the other, by an exactly equal amount, to the >> left. All the ordinary physical properties of the right-handed and >> left-handed modifications are identical. Only certain faces of their >> crystals, often very minute, are differently placed. No chemical process >> can ever transmute the one modification into the other. And their ordinary >> chemical behaviour is absolutely the same, so that no strictly chemical >> process can separate them if they are once mixed. Only the chemical action >> of one optically active substance upon another is different if they both >> twist the ray the same way from what it is if they twist the ray different >> ways. There are certain living organisms which feed on one modification and >> destroy it while leaving the other one untouched. This is presumably due to >> such organisms containing in their substance, possibly in very minute >> proportion, some optically active body. Now I maintain that the original >> segregation of levo-molecules, or molecules with a left-handed twist, from >> dextro-molecules, or molecules with a right-handed twist, is absolutely >> incapable of mechanical explanation. Of course you may suppose that in the >> original nebula at the very formation of the world right-handed quartz was >> collected into one place, while left-handed quartz was collected into >> another place. But to suppose that, is ipso facto to suppose that that >> segregation was a phenomenon without any mechanical explanation. The three >> laws of motion draw no dynamical distinction between right-handed and >> left-handed screws, and a mechanical explanation is an explanation founded >> on the three laws of motion. There, then, is a physical phenomenon >> absolutely inexplicable by mechanical action. This single instance suffices >> to overthrow the Corpuscular Philosophy.” CP 5.65 (note: this passage is >> excerpted from a very long paragraph and can be found about half-way >> through it). >> >> >> Again, should there be sufficient interest, I'll try to find additional >> passages where Peirce references 'handedness'. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 10:49 AM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Gary, >>> >>> I, for one, would be interested in what Peirce passages you believe >>> speak directly to the question of chirality. >>> >>> Thanks, Mike >>> On 10/5/2025 12:21 AM, Gary Richmond wrote: >>> >>> Jerry, List >>> >>> Thank you for your post, especially in introducing the idea of >>> 'handedness' (chirality) into the discussion. I would hold that across >>> science and philosophy that chirality has moved from a 'quirk' of geometry >>> to a fundamental principle of asymmetry not only in chemistry, but in >>> physics, biology, and metaphysics. It shows that left - right >>> distinctions are not conventional but deeply real. I am assuming that you'd >>> agree. >>> >>> [For those who are not familiar with the concept of chirality, I'd >>> recommend: Martin Gardner, *The Ambidextrous Universe *(1964), a >>> popular science book which has as a central theme, chirality, specially in >>> biochemistry, where life’s molecular 'building blocks' display handedness.] >>> >>> While I will most certainly have to defer to you in matters of >>> chemistry, Jerry, I would like to make a few general comments since >>> chirality has long interested me, and I was pleased to find it discussed in >>> Peirce's work. (I can't offer specific passages here, but will do so if >>> there is interest in this thread). >>> >>> In geometry, a left hand and a right hand are congruent in most respects >>> yet can't be superimposed. Peirce tied this to his larger interest in >>> dimensionality, noting that chirality arises in 3-D space in a way it >>> cannot in two, exemplifying how new qualities emerge with higher continua. >>> >>> In logic and semiotics chirality served as an analogy for the >>> non-interchangeability of relations. Just as a right-hand glove cannot be >>> worn on the left hand, certain logical relations cannot be reversed. Peirce >>> argued that signs operate within ordered structures where directionality >>> matters. The left - right distinction shows how relations may be >>> asymmetrical in principle, not just in practice. >>> >>> At a metaphysical level, Peirce connected handedness to certain >>> cosmological doctrines. Chirality, as seen in natural phenomena -- like the >>> handedness of biological molecules -- right-handed and left-handed >>> "screw-structures” (as Peirce terms them) --in certain molecules) -- point >>> to the role of spontaneous asymmetry in the emergence of order. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 12:07 AM Jerry LR Chandler < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> List: >>>> >>>> This shift of philosophical perspective was profound; I noted it years >>>> ago. >>>> >>>> I have a chemical lens through which I read. I concluded that the shift >>>> corresponded with the scientific discovery of the electron as a logical >>>> particle, circa 1898. This discovery annihilated his theory of the discrete >>>> mathematics of chemistry and forced his logic to accommodate the geometric >>>> consequences of Pastuer’s discover of the handedness of tartaric acid >>>> isomers and the subsequent explanation of the same by Vant Hoff and LaBell >>>> in the late 1870’s as continuous mathematical functions. >>>> >>>> I have previously mentioned CSP’s role in the development of the >>>> perplex number systems; it contributed to the triadic modal logic of >>>> chemical sentences. More specifically, to the relationships between the >>>> copulative relatives as indices becoming the legisign. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Jerry >>>> >>> -- >> __________________________________________ >> >> Michael K. Bergman >> 319.621.5225http://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman >> __________________________________________ >> >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
