Re: Frederik Stjernfelt
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13859
Dear Frederik,
Have you read my 1 or 3 citations of Peirce's "non-psychological" definition of
logic?
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-psychological%22+%22Jon+Awbrey%22&num=100&as_qdr=all&filter=0
Well, then you'd know that this topic is hardly a novel one here or elsewhere
on the web.
All kidding aside, there are important things and less important things. We appear to agree on the
substance of Peirce's position and on its importance. More incidental is the question of describing
his view in terms that are less likely to be misunderstood by wider communities of interpretation.
All I tried to do here is to share my experience that folks in logic and math tend to read certain
connotations into "anti-psychologism", folks in cognitive science tend to import other connotations,
and all those extraneous meanings tend to lead people astray. FWIW, as the saying goes.
Regards,
Jon
Frederik Stjernfelt wrote:
Dear Jon -
Did you read my chapter on anti-psychologism? I am flattered that some
participants are so anxious to debate the themes of my book that they jump
ahead in the discussion!
As early as 1865, Peirce said: "But I will go a step further and say that we ought
to adopt a thoroughly unpsychological view of logic . . . (W1 164)." I think P
never wavered from that point of view. That does not imply P regarded psychology as such
as irrelevant, quite on the contrary, he was a pioneer in expermental psychology. He also
thought psychology might investigate issues pertaining to how e.g. the human mind
processes logic and reasoning, cf. its speed, attention span, concentration, etc.
But as to logic itself - even taking P's broad definition comprizing semiotics
and the theory of science he called methodeutics - it should be thoroughly
unpsychological. I do not think anti-psychologism is a misnomer for that
position.
Best
F
Den 02/09/2014 kl. 21.00 skrev Jon Awbrey
<jawb...@att.net<mailto:jawb...@att.net>>
:
Frederik,
Yes, I know that Frege was strongly "anti-" but Peirce's position is more nuanced than
that, and the adjective "non-psychological" has the benefit of being one that Peirce
actually used to describe his definition of logic. I made that suggestion in the hopes of avoiding
some futile discussions, the likes of which I was pained to experience in cognitive sci circles all
through the 80s. So nuff said on that.
Jon
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
