John, lists, So can we say that the order of the effectiveness of blocking inquiry would be as follows ?
Authority > Tenacity > a priori Assumptions > Scientific inquiry. All the best. Sung On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:37 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > Sung, List, > > > > One of the ways to fix belief in the face of doubt (or potential doubt) is > the method of tenacity. Peirce gives the problems with this approach, but > he agrees that all of the approaches he lists have their virtues in some > circumstances. My former professor, for example, Larry Sklar, argued in a > paper Methodological Conservatism, that science should not accept new ideas > unless these are forced by the evidence. It turns out that scientific terms > are not capable of being given fully explicit definitions, so often changes > in view are not forced by the evidence (e.g., Brewster and Brag kept using > the particle theory of light, successfully for at least thirty years after > Fresnel, and E.T. Whittiker wrote a book on physics in the 1930s that > rejected Einstein and used only Lorentz’s results – which gives a better > account of the mass of the electron). In any case, the method of tenacity > removes doubt. It short –circuits the path you describe, since open enquiry > is cut off at the beginning. > > > > John > > > > *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji > *Sent:* April 1, 2015 3:53 PM > *To:* Jon Awbrey > *Cc:* biosemiotics > *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8189] Re: Article on origin of the universe > relevant to some recent discussions on these lists > > > > Thank you Jon, > > > > I read the article with great interest but did not find any direct > reference to the relation between "belief" and "semiosis" or "signs" that I > was looking for. However, the the following quote is interesting because > it may help us conceive of one possible connection between "belief" and > "semiosis" (as indicated in Figure 1 below): > > > > "The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of believe. . > . . The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle > to attain belief. It is certainly best for us that our beliefs should be > such as may truly guide our actions so as to satisfy our desires; and this > reflection will make us reject any belief which does not seem to have been > so formed as to insure this result. But it will only do so by creating a > doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle > begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. . . ." (CP 5.374-375). > > > > Correct me if wrong, but my superficial reading of this paragraph > motivates me to construct the following sequence of processes wherein > belief and inquiry may play essential roles: > > > > > > 1 2 3 > 4 > > Irritation of doubt ---------> Inquiry ---------> Belief ----------> > Guiding of actions ----------> Satisfying desires > > ^ > | > | > | > > |_____________________________________________________________________| > 5 > > > > > > Figure 1. The role of "belief" in the process of "inquiry" according to > Peirce. > > > > > > 1 = causes the human brain to launch an inquiry. > 2 = semiosic interaction with a community of inquirers leads to publicly > acknowledged stable resolution of opposing opinions. > 3 = the mental habit produced by beliefs control actions, both mental and > physical. > > 4 = satisfies our emotional/intellectual desires. > 5 = removes the original irritation of doubt > > > > > > Figure 1 can be interpreted as (i) the process of inquiry seen from > outside and in a population (to be called the 'exo' view) or (ii) the > molecular and cellular processes going on in individual minds and bodies > (the 'endo' view) which are necessary for (i). These endo and exo views > may be complementary aspects of the reality of inquiry. > > > > All the best. > > > > Sung > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > > Sung, List, > > > > I have an early flight in the morning so just two notes: > > > > A precursor of Peirce's pragmatic maxim is Alexander Bain's definition of > belief as that upon which a person is prepared to act. > > > > Also see Peirce's essay, “The Fixation of Belief”: > > > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm > > > > I'm sure other listers can supply further detail. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > > > On Mar 31, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > Jon, > > > > you wrote: > > "Whether we view the Big Bang as a singular haecceity, a spontaneous > occurrence, or simply inexplicable, our current beliefs about the origin of > the universe have arisen through applications of the inquiry process > progressing through the millennia from primitive to fully scientific forms. > Those beliefs may change tomorrow afternoon or a hundred years from now as > new evidence pops up or accumulates over time but if and when they do it > will be through further applications of the same tradition of inquiry." > > > > What is interesting to me is that you mentioned "belief" twice in this > statement. Did Peirce ever brought up "belief" in his discussions on > semiosis or semiotics ? I ask this question because in the irreducible > triadic diagram I use to represent the Peircean sign or semiosis, there is > a room for the involvement of "belief" (I believe), as indicated below (see > Step denoted as -h, the reverse of Step h): > > > > f g > > Object ------------------------> Sign ------------------> > Interpretant > (Origin of the Universe) (Osbervable Universe) (Big Bang > theory) > > | > ^ > > | > | > |____________________________________________| > > h > > > > Figure 1. Is "believing" an intrinsic part/component of semiosis ? > f = natural process/feeling/'emotion' (e.g., cosmogenesis) > g = mental process/'cognition' (leading to, e.g., the Big > Bang theory) > > h = information flow (enabling humans to know reality) > -h = believing or 'credition' > > > > All the best. > > > > Sung > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > > John, List, > > > > Ontological questions are always interesting but aside from the weak bonds > of some putative anthropic principle they don't bear that heavily on > methodological questions. Whether we view the Big Bang as a singular > haecceity, a spontaneous occurrence, or simply inexplicable, our current > beliefs about the origin of the universe have arisen through applications > of the inquiry process progressing through the millennia from primitive to > fully scientific forms. Those beliefs may change tomorrow afternoon or a > hundred years from now as new evidence pops up or accumulates over time but > if and when they do it will be through further applications of the same > tradition of inquiry. > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon > > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 11:47 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > > Dear lists, > > > > The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the Big > Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It cites, > among others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the approaches > that we have argued for. It also brings together other related material > from other sources related to symmetry breaking (information formation, > and, if on a cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it invokes the “no > boundary conditions” requirement for a satisfactory cosmological theory > (favoured by Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other cosmologists). The > authors give this condition as that the universe originated in a > singularity that is not knowable, since it contains no information. > Information, here, is of course the physicists’ notion of “it from bit”, > used in cosmology, the study of black holes and in some branches of Quantum > Theory (quantum computation and quantum field theory in particular), > according to which energy and matter are incidental, and information > (distinctness) is fundamental. > > > > The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo > > Maya Lincoln > > Electronic Address: maya.linc...@processgene.com > > Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel > > Avi Wasser > > Electronic Address: awas...@research.haifa.ac.il > > Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel > > > > It can be found online with a good search engine. > > > > The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say “a > first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s > views, judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But > perhaps it is more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really > resolves the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, but if it > does, it makes the existence of the Universe necessary rather than > contingent. > > > > Cheers, > > John > > > > John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041 > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > > > -- > > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > Rutgers University > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- 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 .
