Stefan, the questions you ask for data and methodology are
natural and understandable in terms of Peirce's abiding guidance
on the scientific method and fallibility. Edwina, the evidence
you offer is the best available given our current state of
knowledge, and represents a reasonable and supportable
hypothesis given the evidence.
I think Peirce would approve of the inquiry of this thread,
but not the last snide tone of your response, Stefan. This has
been an interesting thread, and Edwina has put forward one of
the more cogent summaries of how to look at the question of "why
democracy" I have seen. In the end, it is all wrong, but it is
something to strive to learn more from, not dismiss.
Best, Mike
On 11/19/2016 11:53 PM, sb wrote:
Edwina,
oh, this is a Peirce list, that's interesting, isn't it? What kind
of red hering is this? You keep writing this stuff on this list
for years over and over again. Now, when someone asks you for some
evidence of your "theory" you say you can't provide it because
this is a Peirce list? Why the heck do state that stuff in the
first place on this list over and over again?
Asking for evidence is quite a natural thing for scientists - not
willing to provide it for ideologists.
Got nothing more to say and ask.
Best,
Stefan
Am 20. November 2016 03:36:35 MEZ,
schrieb Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>:
Stefan - I can't deal with your
questions on this list, as it is a site devoted to Peirce
- and Peirce has nothing to do with ecological analysis of
societal adaptation.
i may deal with it off-list - but
your questions are, to me, rather strange, for you seem to
be approaching societal adaptation as if it were some kind
of chemical formula carried out in a laboratory. There are
plenty of books on 'cultural ecology' [look up the term]-
which is basically what I'm talking about [R. Netting, E.
Moran.] And plenty of books dealing with non-industrial
societies, their physical environments, their societal
systems, their economies, their populations sizes..etc.
There are all kinds of data on population dynamics among
various groups..
As for technological change - there
are equally well-documented works on the development of
technology, the development of sources of energy
[manpower, animal, wind, water, fossil fuels, etc]. The
development of towns, of currency, roads, ...literacy
etc...And there are plenty of books on societal
organization and the development of the middle class
market economy in the West. [J.D. Bernal, Ferdinand
Braudel..]
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday,
November 19, 2016 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L]
Peirce and Democracy
Edwina,
where can we find these descriptive data? Did you use
archival data? Did you do any fieldwork? Has it been
published? What sources do you draw on? How did you conduct
your qualitative research? What hypotheses guided your
qualitative research? Have documented how you get to your
conclusions? Could you provide us your analytical framework?
What are the exact cases you did study? What are the
dimensions of comparison between the cases? Where are they
similar? Where are they different? What is your ecological
analysis based on? Where did you get the ecological data?
How did you link it with the cases you have studied? Have
your heard of Qualitative Comparative Analysis?
In short: Could you please provide us information on what
data you did use, where to find these data, how you analyzed
the data and where to find the documentation of your
analysis to back up any of your claims?
"Looking" at "the West", "late industrialism" and "climate",
is a bit abstract, isn't it? I would really appreciate if
you could elaborate a bit more on data and how you arrived
at your conclusions, than on the conclusions themselfes.
Best,
Stefan
Am 20. November 2016 01:35:38 MEZ,
schrieb Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>:
Stefan - the analysis is based
on descriptive data of the
ecological anthropological analyses of various
socioeconomic peoples - hunting/gathering; the
different types of agriculturalism - wet and dry
horticulture, pastoral nomadic, rainfall
agriculture...and early and late industrialism. It
includes first a consideration of the
ecological realities in the area; second the
socioeconomic descriptions of the way [kinship,
political, legal] that people have adapted to those
ecological realities..and third, the history and
technological developments ...particularly of the
West. Why the West? Because it has the richest most
fertile biome on the planet - which is why its
population kept increasing and why it eventually had
to, with difficulty, change its technology to
support that increased population.
Data would be based around
ecological factors: arable land and soil, water type
and availability [ie, desert, tundra, seasonal,
irrigation, rainfall, rainforest..] ; climate and
temperatures; plant and animal types and the
domestication capacities of both; carrying capacity
of the land; carrying capacity of the technology to
extract food/sustenance;
Then, you'd look at population
size. And then societal systems - such as kinship
systems, and political systems.
There is no lab test possible;
there are no falsifying assumptions. It's pure
description of 'the ecological realities and the
societal forms of actual peoples. Then, one can
generalize. And it's interesting to see how peoples
- completely out of touch with each other - have
nevertheless developed the SAME societal structures
if they are in similar ecological realities.
Edwina
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Saturday,
November 19, 2016 6:35 PM
Subject: Re:
[PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Edwina,
i would be really interested how you tackled such a
complex theoretical concept empirically.
Which historic datasets of demography and economics
did you use? To build up such a database must have
been quite labourious!
I would also be really interested in how you
operationalized your theory? What constructs and
variables did you use? In which datasets are they
found? How did you model your assumptions
statistically?
In testing your theory, what were your initial
hypotheses? Where have you been able to falsify or
verify your assumptions? Where did you struggle
empirically because of data quality?
Best,
Stefan
Am 19. November 2016 22:48:20
MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca>:
Yes - I've taught this
relationship between economics, population
size and political infrastructure for about 20
years. No- it's not really in the Architectonics
book. It IS in a graphic book, The
Graphic Guide to Socioeconomics - which
a retired CEO banker and myself have just
finished [about 170 slides]....which deals
with the pragmatic relations between
population size and economic modes and
political modes. I am not sure if I should
attach it since is has nothing to do with
Peirce. It's a powerpoint presentation which
we are planning to promote as a 'graphic guide
for dummies' on the topic, so to speak.
That is - we tried to
make it clear that democracy, which means
'political power of the majority decision' is
suitable only in large population,
flexible-risktaking- growth economies, and
unsuitable in small population no-growth
steady-state economies which must ensure their
economic continuity by focusing on retaining
the capacity-to-make-wealth by stable measures
[control of the land, control of the cattle,
control of fishing rights, etc].
And we've been very
surprised in our test runs with various people
- how many people don't understand the basic
issues of growth/no growth economies, carrying
capacity of the economy; growth vs
steady-state populations; what is a middle
class; what is capitalism; the role of risk;
the role of individuals..etc. etc.
Edwina
----- Original
Message -----
Sent:
Saturday, November 19, 2016 4:20 PM
Subject:
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Edwina, list,
You've clearly given
this a lot of prior thought, Edwina. I want
to reflect on wht you wrote and see what
others think before commenting further. Btw,
would looking again at your book, Architectonics
of Semiosis, for example, Chapter 2,
"Purity and Power," be of any value in this
discussion (as I initially began reading it
I recall that in an off-list message you
commented that in some ways you were now
seeing things quite differently than you did
in 1998)?
Best,
Gary R
-----------------------------
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 .
--
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.
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
CEO Cognonto and Structured Dynamics
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://structureddynamics.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
|