...but doesn't CP 5.189 satisfy as a schema with all criteria you just imposed?
What's natural about a schema? best, Jerry R On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Supplement: Please replace in my below post "scheme" with "pattern". I am > not a native speaker, and the german term "Schema" means in English both > "pattern" and "scheme", but in this case "pattern" is more appropiate, as > it does not suggest a personal intention like "scheme" does, but may as > well be a result of habit or evolution, which is what I have meant. > Jerry, John, Gary, Olga, (...), list, > Gary wrote: > "Yet throwing that proverbial baby out with the bath water is exactly > what some scientists would like to do, and in attempting and recommending > and nearly insisting on this, they are in effect meaning to reduce all > 'true' knowledge to that which is 'precise' and 'verifiable', making > virtually everything but science culturally 'relative' (at best)." > John wrote: > "I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the > scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, > taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other > source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of > these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between > cultures." > I think, that all that is not an outcome of a scientific investigation, > can nevertheless be investigated with the scientific method. Not that it > will grantedly deliver a clear evidential result. But investigation with a > scientific attitude can be done. Classification of human behaviour or human > ways of having problems, articulated in myths, in religion, literature, > philosphy, and so on, can be tried by first tentatively assigning and then > validating these aspects to different systems levels of the subsumptive > systems hierarchy (Stanley N. Salthe): From which systems level is the > particular behaviour scheme, problem scheme, or myth, inherited? Is it the > universe (action and reaction...), then it is universal. Does it apply to > all organisms (they have to eat...), it is an organismic affair. Is it > mammal-specific (care for babies...), it is mammal-specific. Is it about > primates? Is it the human species (to do with hunting, collecting,...), > then it is human. Is it culture specific... I guess, that in less cases > than we think, something is culture-specific. Cultures however often claim > certain properties: Moses brought the comandments from the mountain. But in > other cultures, killing, stealing, adultery, and so on, are forbidden as > well (Kants imperative: "Apriori" in the sense of universally pure > reason?). And there are problem schemes, that only occur in special > situations, and may well be avoided, such as fighting, hatred, envy, and > war: Both chimpanzees and bonobos, on either sides of the Kongo river, are > descendants of our ancestors, and the bonobos have found a way (we not > necessarily would have to absolutely exactly copy, I guess) to avoid these > problems. So we might be able too, and it would be wrong to say, that war > is a necessary behaviour or unavoidable problem scheme of humans. There > even is an urgency to do a scientific investigation about the origins of > myths (and on the other hand the origins of values), because there never > will be peace, if we believe philosophers, who claim, that envy, war, or > fight (or masters and slaves, Nietzsche with his superhuman) are necessary > human or even universal conditions, and deny values. The results of this > investigations would be, which problems are avoidable, and how, and which > are unavoidable, and how they might be solved. Talking too much again, > Best, > Helmut > > > 06. Juli 2016 um 22:16 Uhr > "Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > John C, Gary R, Peirce-list: > > Are those things you say or things Peirce says of scientific method? > > Thanks, > Jerry R > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Olga, John, list, >> >> Thank you for your thoughts in this matter, Olga. It is so nice to see >> you on peirce-l, and I'll look forward to future posts from you. Indeed, >> your first post has already elicited this, in my opinion, excellent outline >> by John Collier. >> >> John, thank you for this excellently well balanced assessment of the >> situation. I'm about to head off to Victoria, BC, Canada for a nine day >> vacation commencing tomorrow and am caught up in preparations for that, yet >> I'd like to briefly comment on some of your concluding remarks. You wrote: >> >> >> JC: When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even >> inside (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge >> are need. They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, >> philosophy and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on >> the same level of precision and verifiability as we can science. >> >> >> >> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the >> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, >> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other >> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of >> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between >> cultures. >> >> >> >> >> Yes, fallibilism in all things scientific as well as those outside the >> scope of science. Yet, I wonder a bit about your emphasis in the first of >> the two paragraphs above on "the same level of precision and verifiability" >> as we sometimes--but not always--have seen in science, and slightly >> question whether these other non-scientific areas ought be characterized as >> that which we can "fall back on." >> >> Recently, as a result of reading Michael Shapiro's study on sound and >> meaning in Shakespeare's Sonnets, I've been looking quite closely at a >> number of the sonnets with increased appreciation of Shakespeare's >> accomplishment in that genre. I've also been involved in a rather intensive >> look at his *A Midsummer Night's Dream*, having just seen my 7th >> production of it this year (4 theatrical productions, two ballets, and a >> filmed version). After these several hundreds of years Shakespeare still, >> it seems to me, sheds light--and, typically, new light with each re-reading >> or re-hearing--on human relations and 'vital' matters of "the human heart." >> These are, I think necessarily *not* precise, and they are at best only >> *vaguely* verifiable (while, however, my emotional response to a line of >> dialogue, say, can be confirmed by an entire audience's similar >> reaction--say laugher, or a communal gasp). >> >> As to the second paragraph above, I would tend not so much to think that >> we should approach such forms as music, literature and the like from a >> "scientific attitude," but, again, rather with a sense of *fallibility* >> since, as you wrote, " Our past experience has shown us that almost none >> of these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between >> cultures." Still, for example, some of Shakespeare's insights have held >> for hundreds of years and across many, many cultures (one might note that >> his work has been translated into 80 languages). You continued: >> >> >> JC: So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from >> being able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the >> world, elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I >> think it would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore >> everything that doesn’t meet current scientific standards. >> >> >> >> Yet throwing that proverbial baby out with the bath water is exactly what >> some scientists would like to do, and in attempting and recommending and >> nearly insisting on this, they are in effect meaning to reduce all 'true' >> knowledge to that which is 'precise' and 'verifiable', making virtually >> everything but science culturally 'relative' (at best). You concluded: >> >> >> >> JC: I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of >> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is a >> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting >> through it very methods. >> >> >> We probably have seen the misuse of science in the interest of power >> increase in modern times (although this is a moot point), while there are >> other questions regarding science which come to mind which I can't get into >> now, but which include some parts of science and metaphysics (e.g. aspects >> of cosmology, string theory, etc.) sometimes seeming, to this observer at >> leas,t to smack of science fiction as much as of science. In addition, as >> my friend and colleague, Alan Wolf (now head of the physics department at >> Cooper-Union in NYC) commented when I asked him where chaos theory was >> headed, Alan being one of the earliest researchers into mathematical chaos >> theory: "It's pretty much reached a dead end." This is just to suggest that >> science and mathematics have sometimes been, imo, given too much emphasis >> in the popular imagination, and that that weight can't always be sustained. >> >> Well, this is all certainly too rouch to be of much value, as opposed to >> your thoughtful post, John, which I'll reread and continue to reflect on in >> the days to come. Meanwhile, I personally hold science in high regard, and >> will continue to take a scientific attitude in considering science and >> cenoscopic science. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690* >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:30 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Olga, List, >>> >>> >>> >>> Science has both advantages and limitations due to its method. On the >>> advantage side, one can come up with ideas galore, but to be accepted as >>> scientific they have to be tested and alternative explanations of the >>> phenomena be shown to not provide an explanation. This requires that a) all >>> scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable, b) there must be methods for >>> testing these hypotheses (not quite the same as (a)), and c) due to the >>> mutual dependence of (a) and especially (b) on other assumptions (called >>> “auxiliary assumptions” in most places, science has to progress piecemeal >>> based on previous scientific knowledge. Science is also subject to major >>> shifts (revolutions) when we have ignored evidence (e.g., the properties of >>> the very small as found in quantum mechanics) or misinterpreted it (e.g., >>> Mercury’s precession values). Typically, though, much of established >>> science is retained at least as an approximation in any new theory. I could >>> add a lot (found in Kuhn, Feyerabend and other >>> anti-reductionist-empiricists) about how science can progress in order to >>> add to scientific knowledge, but it would take too long here. Suffice to >>> say that these things further limit point (b). On the disadvantage side, >>> the problems follow from the same factors, especially (b) and (c), since it >>> means that science must proceed piecemeal, and at any given time there will >>> be large areas that are not accessible to current science with it current >>> methods and presuppositions. Much of this area to which current science is >>> blind is exactly there area that is of most interest in our human pursuits. >>> I might add that when science does try to deal outside of its current scope >>> it often gets into trouble. I am thinking in particular of recent work that >>> shows that fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) has serious >>> problems as it has been used in at least thousands of important >>> neuropsychological studies, meaning they will need to be done over again, >>> at the very least. This is hardly the only example, just one that is >>> currently shaking things up. At least, though. The very methods of science >>> can (and did in this case) find such problems and show how to correct them. >>> The biggest strength of science is not its scope or ability to find general >>> truths about the world, but its self-correcting character. >>> >>> >>> >>> When dealing with things outside the scope of science, and even inside >>> (given the fallibility of science) other areas of human knowledge are need. >>> They are what we can fall back on. Myth, religion, literature, philosophy >>> and so on can be very useful as long as we don’t place them on the same >>> level of precision and verifiability as we can science. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think it helps even in these areas, though, to keep some of the >>> scientific attitude and remain somewhat skeptical of untested results, >>> taking them as at best tentative (and not God-given or from some other >>> source of certainty). Our past experience has shown us that almost none of >>> these other areas are universal for all space and time, or even between >>> cultures. >>> >>> >>> >>> So even if science has its built in limitations, and is far from being >>> able to answer all the questions we might have about humans in the world, >>> elements of the scientific attitude are still very helpful. But I think it >>> would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater to just ignore everything >>> that doesn’t meet current scientific standards. >>> >>> >>> >>> I haven’t discussed the abuse of science, which like other sources of >>> power gets misused by powerful and/or charismatic people, but it is a >>> danger that at least science itself is in principle capable of meeting >>> through it very methods. >>> >>> >>> >>> John Collier >>> >>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate >>> >>> University of KwaZulu-Natal >>> >>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Olga [mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 05 July 2016 11:35 PM >>> *To:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* >>> scientific method >>> >>> >>> >>> Gary, >>> >>> >>> >>> List, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am certainly overwhelmed and lost in translation so have mercy on me, >>> simply try to find this merely amusing.... but how taking into account >>> "revelation" or "miracles" >>> >>> >>> >>> "how is it that the results of science are more reliable than what is >>> provided by these other forms?" >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Imho science is way behind in defining certain processes, concepts or >>> things comparing to other forms... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> As an example of revelation, >>> >>> Dmitri Mendeleev <http://www.famousscientists.org/dmitri-mendeleev/> was >>> obsessed with finding a logical way to organize the chemical elements. It >>> had been preying on his mind for months but... he made his discovery in a >>> dream... >>> >>> Imho science is slowly describing in its own language of numbers and >>> parameters what can be or was already fully grasped by a human mind and >>> vivid imagination. It seems to me that >>> >>> >>> >>> Quantified precision with exceptions defeats *ideal* as a whole. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word >>> was God." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Word - ideal. Exceptions are limiting the whole without seeing the whole >>> picture... >>> >>> >>> >>> If we talk about courage with exceptions, then retreating for the sake >>> of winning in a long run, well known in history, is an exception of the >>> exception? :) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Once again, my sincere apologies, I'm not an expert in this field... :) >>> >>> >>> >>> Peace to all! Life to all! Love to all! >>> >>> Olga >>> >>> >>> On 05 Jul 2016, at 22:55, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> List, >>> >>> >>> >>> I found this very short provocative essay of interest. >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?ref=opinion >>> >>> >>> >>> The author's conclusion: >>> >>> >>> >>> If scientific method is only one form of a general method employed in >>> all human inquiry, how is it that the results of science are more reliable >>> than what is provided by these other forms? I think the answer is that >>> science deals with highly quantified variables and that it is the precision >>> of its results that supplies this reliability. But make no mistake: >>> Quantified precision is not to be confused with a superior method of >>> thinking. >>> >>> I am not a practicing scientist. So who am I to criticize scientists’ >>> understanding of their method? >>> >>> I would turn this question around. Scientific method is not itself an >>> object of study for scientists, but it is an object of study for >>> philosophers of science. It is not scientists who are trained specifically >>> to provide analyses of scientific method. >>> >>> James Blachowicz >>> <http://www.luc.edu/philosophy/faculty_blachowicz.shtml> is a professor >>> emeritus of philosophy at Loyola University Chicago and the author of “Of >>> Two Minds: The Nature of Inquiry >>> <http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2705-of-two-minds.aspx>” and “Essential >>> Difference: Toward a Metaphysics of Emergence >>> <http://www.sunypress.edu/p-5374-essential-difference.aspx>.” >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [image: Gary Richmond] >>> >>> >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> >>> *Communication Studies* >>> >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> >>> *C 745* >>> >>> *718 482-5690* >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> > > ----------------------------- 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 . > ----------------------------- 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 . >
----------------------------- 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 .
