Stefan, list:
I think you’re right that we may learn something about reasonableness by asking an analogous question, “what is…a fool”. It is to ask and be aware of what we are doing when we ask the Socratic “what is…?” question. Yet, are we not being foolish by thinking we can add to the meaning of *the* fool by starting from scratch with no guidance as if no one else has asked and asserted on the notion before? The assumption being made on a Peirce list ought to be to speak for *everybody* on the meaning of *the* fool. That is, the intention is to persuade others on a matter of common conception through reasoning. This is what we do for *the* scientific method. Yet, there is this great multiplicity when we should expect only one. So, are we being foolish or are we just expressing our nature? It’s fun to ask and answer “what is…”, is it not? Is it not in our nature to do so? You said, “Or, abduction, induction, deduction and the combination of them is so universal that even the idiots make use of it.” Yes, there is the trivial business of distinguishing one, two, three; by which I mean abduction, deduction, induction. It is universal and even idiots make use of it. But this is not a theory intended for the individual, as that is too complicated. It is a method for a community to adopt at the outset. Therefore, the better question is what makes abduction/deduction/induction good or bad, not whether there is such a thing and whether idiots make use of them. It appears at least Peirce has settled the matter of its universality. You said, “P.S. @Convergence of truth: Do we know the mightiness of the icon? Can truth converge when the universe itself evolves?” I believe that is the question being raised in fallibilism/convergence. Perhaps the answer is not addressed in your assumptions. Perhaps we ought to look to others for guidance. “Only *everybody* can know the truth.” “The opinion fated to be *ultimately* agreed to by *all who investigate* is what we mean by the truth…” “I may as well, however, say a word about the indifference to logic which we find not on the part of “everybody”, - since “everybody” is more or less a fool, but on the part of really superior minds. Such minds desire to understand the theory of every kind of doing in which they take part when any question of superiority between different methods of doing it is open…no *lanterna pedibus*, no light to guide their researches.” ~Peirce “The attitude of an earlier type of writers was fundamentally different. They believed that the gulf separating “the wise” and “the vulgar” was a basic fact of human nature which could not be influenced by any progress of popular education: philosophy, or science, was essentially a privilege of “the few”… “Liberal education, which consists in the constant intercourse with the greatest minds, is a training in the highest form of modesty, not to say of humility. It is at the same time a training in boldness: it demands from us the complete break with the noise, the rush, the thoughtlessness... Liberal education is liberation from vulgarity. The Greeks had a beautiful word for "vulgarity"; they called it *apeirokalia*, lack of experience in things beautiful. Liberal education supplies us with experience in things beautiful.” ~Strauss, What is Liberal Education? The mightiness of the icon can be understood with respect to experience in things beautiful. It is imbued with the power to bridge that great chasm between the vulgar and the wise. one, two, three... beauty, goodness, truth... icon, index, symbol... esthetics, ethics, logic... Best, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:23 AM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: > Jerry, List, > > thanks for pointing back to the beginning of the thread. > > We always think that the scientific method, if there is *one*, is a > extremely clever thing. Therefore, in contrast, I would turn the question > upside down and ask: Is there a distinct method of idiocy? > > I believe there are a million ways to make a fool of oneself. Or > paraphrasing Manns Zauberberg: There are many ways of foolishness and > intelligence is not the best of them. Or, abduction, induction, deduction > and the combination of them is so universal that even the idiots make use > of it. > > Maybe we learn more by asking what makes the fool? Is it making mistakes? > Is it being unlogic? Is it tenacity? Is it believing in apriori? Is it > believing in authority? Is it... What makes the fool and is it universal? > > Depending on the idea of science we do not necessarily learn something > about science by trying to answer these questions but at least we learn > something about reasonableness. > > Best > Stefan > > P.S. @Convergence of truth: Do we know the mightiness of the icon? Can > truth converge when the universe itself evolves? > > > Am 15. Juli 2016 20:05:29 MESZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com>: >> >> Hi list; >> >> >> The original question is whether there is a distinct scientific method… >> >> >> >> Which is to ask whether there is a scientific method agreeable to not >> just any mind but to *the* culture of *the* mind… >> >> or a scientific method agreeable to the *commens*… >> >> _______ >> >> >> >> If we consciously adopt the *lanterna pedibus* for this dark question, >> >> >> >> then the asserted parallels are; >> >> >> >> The surprising fact, *scientific* *method*, is observed. >> >> But if *contrite fallibilism* were true, C would be a matter of course… >> >> >> >> or, >> >> >> >> The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed. >> >> But if *convergence theory of truth* were true… >> >> >> >> or, >> >> >> >> The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed. >> >> But if *contrite fallibilism/convergence* were true… >> >> >> >> or, >> >> >> >> The surprising fact, *scientific method*, is observed. >> >> But if *CP 5.189* were true… >> >> >> >> So, which is best? Which is vague? Which is complete? Which is clear? >> >> Which is at the *end of inquiry*? Which at the *here and now*? >> >> Do they imply the same of one another or merely emphasize differences? >> >> Must the working hypothesis come at the beginning? >> >> Is there room for growth of symbols, where an act of knowing a real >> object alters it? >> >> >> >> If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism, *is it* nothing >> else than the question of the logic of abduction? >> >> >> >> Perhaps it is our conceit that there is only one way of understanding a >> phenomenon… >> >> >> >> Best, >> Jerry Rhee >> >> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:49 PM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: >> >>> Gary F., >>> >>> maybe i misread your original post. I was triggered by "and >>> historically, there’s a lot of truth to that". Knee jerk reaction pushing >>> an already open door... >>> >>> Best >>> Stefan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 14. Juli 2016 15:47:42 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca: >>>> >>>> Stefan, I would concur with everything you say here. “Revolt against >>>> authority” as *a* founding myth of “modern science” is, to me, not a >>>> hypothesis but an oversimplified story (all stories are simplified to some >>>> degree). One can find traces of it in, for example, the “Cosmos” television >>>> series, both the original with Carl Sagan and the more recent one with Neil >>>> deGrasse Tyson. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> gary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] >>>> *Sent:* 14-Jul-16 05:29 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gary F., >>>> >>>> yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on the >>>> idea that we are standing on shoulders of giants. >>>> >>>> But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for example >>>> Galileo, he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted in the >>>> tradition of christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church of the >>>> middle ages was quite tolerant towards natural philosophy. Galileo referred >>>> to this tolerant tradition in his defense. The intolerance against natural >>>> philosophy was something new and was a product of the church internal war >>>> between jesuits and dominicans. In this view Galileos ideas were the battle >>>> field but not the source of the battle. >>>> >>>> Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition? No, >>>> he was deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work is >>>> dedidicated to alchemy. The close relation between his work on gravity and >>>> his alchemical work has been shown by history of science. >>>> >>>> Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of >>>> experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or already >>>> serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed without >>>> experimenting? >>>> >>>> Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in accordance >>>> with their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also Peirce >>>> did so. >>>> >>>> Yes, the whole world view changed in the 16th century, but it is not >>>> that easy like the modern revolutionaries that rebell against authority on >>>> one side and the outdated antimodern on the other side. Knowledge >>>> production in that time was a complex web of social relations in which a >>>> complex set of ideas circulated. >>>> >>>> I know your not making it that simple (your comment about the source of >>>> the hypothesis) but many people in science still believe in the founding >>>> myth. >>>> >>>> Putting the said above in the context of the original exchange between >>>> Olga, John and Gary my point is that when we look closer the sharp line >>>> between science and non-science gets blurred. I think it is important to >>>> keep the difference between the organizational borders of the sociological >>>> phenomenon science, the individual scientific skills (scientific >>>> craftsmanship like statistics, experiments etc.) and the scientifc ethos in >>>> mind. In my opinion the ethos is the most important whether someone is >>>> within an scientific organization and has scientific skills or not, because >>>> the latter are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >>> gesendet. >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -- > Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail > gesendet. >
----------------------------- 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 .
