Dear Steven
Not quantum mechanics as far as I can see.
Søren
Fra: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] På vegne af Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
Sendt: 12. marts 2015 03:55
Til: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Jon Awbrey; Peirce List
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude
So it is the "infinitesimal departures from law" that I disagree with. If
Charles were referring only to randomness within the laws, then that would be
fine and he'd have on disagreement from me. But as it stands it undermines the
whole scientific endeavor.
Regards,Steven
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
No, it doesn't undermine everything else. Spontaneity is not anarchy or
randomness. Spontaneity, as Peirce noted, and I repeat:
"by thus admitting pure spontaneity of life as a character of the universe,
acting always and everywhere though restrained within narrow bounds by law,
producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and great ones with
infinite infrequency, I account for all the variety and diversity of the
universe" 6.59......The ordinary view has to admit the inexhaustible
multitudinous variety of the world, has to admit that its mechanical law cannot
account for this in the least, that variety can spring only from
spontaneity..... (ibid)...
Spontaneity is a basic property of life, just as habit-formation is a basic
property; just as kinetic mechanical action is yet another property (Firstness,
Thirdness and Secondness in that order)...and they work interactively together.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us>
To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>
Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us> ; Jon
Awbrey<mailto:jawb...@att.net> ; Peirce List<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude
But you understand the epistemic implications of accepting spontaneity as a
law, it undermines everything else.
Steven
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
I continue to differ. Scientific knowledge is not reduced to knowledge about
necessary actions but must include an acknowledgement of the reality of
spontaneity. I presume you've read Peirce's 1892 'The Doctrine of Necessity
Examined'. I provided a brief quote from that in an earlier post. I think his
argument stands as rational and valid and not, as you suggest, 'off the rails'.
Therefore, to confine scientific knowledge only to the results of law and
refuse to accept as real, as valid, as anything other than 'random aberration'
- these spontaneous events, reduces not science but life itself to mere
mechanical iterations.
I'm saying that spontaneity is, in itself, a 'kind of law' which is to say, it
is a basic reality, a vital component, of life. Again, I don't define
spontaneity as 'randomness' which is in itself mechanical and empty; I define
spontaneity as probability (not possibility) - which means that there is in
life, a basic capacity to 'be different from the norm'. This capacity is not,
again, due to randomness which is a mere mechanical result; it is an active
auto-organized capacity of information gathering by the organism of its
environment - and within itself, a capacity to deviate from its normative mode
- and, spontaneously, differ and form an adaptation, an evolved state.
How does your view of 'results only due to necessary laws' - allow for this
deviation? I would presume that you would consider deviation to be random. I
reject randomness as a total waste of energy, and suggest that the organism has
in itself, the capacity to deviate - and this is not and cannot be law-driven
but must be spontaneous. Again, spontaneity (see also Aristotle on this) is not
the same as randomness.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us>
To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>
Cc: Jon Awbrey<mailto:jawb...@att.net> ; Peirce
List<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude
Edwina says: "Scientific knowledge, in my view, has the capacity to acknowledge
events and situations that are not replicable, i.e., are not within the control
of an agent or system, but, are random non-controlled events that have taken
place (a chance event) and might probably take place (a deviation from the norm
and the development of a new species)."
I would very much like to see an example of, or even to hear an account of,
such an event or situation, and how you would propose that science deal with it.
This is where Charles goes off the rails later in life from the views of his
father. If we allowed such "spontaneity" in necessity then how could science
state any law?
This is a case where Charles threatens to undermine the entire venture of his
inquiry.
Steven
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
Jon, you are dancing around or should I say, with, red herrings - which in
themselves are fallacious arguments.
There is: argument ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) and ad populum (appeal
to a broad consensus) ...as in your claim that your view is held by 'a long
chain of perceptors'. But referring to this long chain and broad consensus
doesn't, in my view, substantiate your claim that scientific knowledge 'rests
on results that are replicable'. Furthermore - you are switching terms: the
'scientific method' is not at all the same as 'scientific knowledge'.
Scientific knowledge, in my view, has the capacity to acknowledge events and
situations that are not replicable, i.e., are not within the control of an
agent or system, but, are random non-controlled events that have taken place
(a chance event) and might probably take place (a deviation from the norm and
the development of a new species).
And your definition of 'chance' as, apart from not being similar to any you
know (have you not read Peirce?!)...as
"A pattern of results not significantly different from those predicted by
the null hypothesis are what we call "chance" in scientific inference and
yet results of that ilk are most annoyingly and eminently reproducible"
is, to me, ambiguous and ignores the reality that is chance, ..see Peirce's
argument in favour of 'pure spontaneity' and 'absolute chance' in the Doctrine
of Necessity, and "by thus admitting pure spontaneity of life as a character of
the universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within narrow
bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and
great ones with infinite infrequency, I account for all the variety and
diversity of the universe" 6.59......The ordinary view has to admit the
inexhaustible multitudinous variety of the world, has to admit that its
mechanical law cannot account for this in the least, that variety can spring
only from spontaneity..... (ibid)...
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey"
<jawb...@att.net<mailto:jawb...@att.net>>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>; "Peirce
List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:42 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Scientific Attitude
Inquiry Blog
• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/03/10/scientific-attitude-1/
Peirce List
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15803
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15804
Edwina, List,
I hope no one thinks I was trying to write anything novel
or shocking in my little SA. I merely aimed to summarize
the precepts that a long chain of preceptors have handed
down to us regarding what forms the bare bones of the SA.
That first line you quibble with is stock in trade for scientific method.
No one says you have to buy it, but you quibble with a broad consensus.
And you appear to have a different definition of "chance" than any I know.
A pattern of results not significantly different from those predicted by
the null hypothesis are what we call "chance" in scientific inference and
yet results of that ilk are most annoyingly and eminently reproducible.
Regards,
Jon
On 3/10/2015 10:54 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I will quibble with Jon's view that
>
> "scientific knowledge rests on results that are reproducible".
>
> I would consider that to refer to 'mechanical knowledge' (Secondness)
> for the scientific approach acknowledges the reality, which also means
> the 'probability-to-be-actual' (Secondness), as Peirce insisted, of
> 'chance, freedom' or Firstness.
>
> Chance events are never, by definition, reproducible. Only mechanical
> processes are such, and scientific knowledge has to acknowledge the
> reality of all three modes, not just those that are in Secondness and
> Thirdness (, as Jon also pointed out with reference to Thirdness ...
> "It is knowledge of particulars in general terms". )
>
> We can of course, quibble over what is 'knowledge'
> and what is 'approach, attitude and so on' but I'm
> not into needles-on-a-pin.
>
> Edwina
>
--
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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
-----------------------------
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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
________________________________
-----------------------------
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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
________________________________
-----------------------------
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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
