Gary F, Jon A, John, Gary F wrote that he holds that: "Peirce’s concept of information did NOT change over the years, and that his usages of “breadth” and “depth” (for what are now usually called “extension” and “intension”) in the early 1900s are no different from his 1867 usages."
I completely agree. Where is the evidence for your claim to the contrary, Jon, by which I mean the present argumentation and citations to the late Peirce on this? Then we might compare and contrast. I must admit that I too am getting somewhat impatient with your sending us large numbers of links to your previous work, Jon. This is, after all, a *discussion* forum. Gary F also remarked: "I admire John’s conciseness and would like to see more of that from the rest of us on the list." It's hard to imagine that many folk in any discipline and participating in any forum could be both as cogent and at the same time as concise as John Sowa is (and always has been in my experience of now over almost two decades). Examining the slides he recently provided us with--both the long and short versions--is more evidence of that to my way of thinking--and, they are visually concise as well. Still, "more of that" conciseness is surely a desideratum for those of us who post to PEIRCE-L. 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, Jun 28, 2017 at 4:57 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > John, list, > > > > I think we all agree that Peirce’s concept of information has significant > advantages over Shannon’s, for semiotic purposes. But in reference to his > current monologue, Jon appears to be claiming that Peirce’s early (1866-7) > concept of “information” is better (less “nominalistic”) than *Peirce’s > own* later concept of information. > > > > But when I published my own paper on Peirce’s concept of information in > 2010, http://gnusystems.ca/Rehabit.htm, I claimed that Peirce’s concept > of information did NOT change over the years, and that his usages of > “breadth” and “depth” (for what are now usually called “extension” and > “intension”) in the early 1900s are no different from his 1867 usages. I > have yet to see any reason to change my mind about that. So, Jon, I would > very much like to your evidence for the difference you claim to see. > > > > But, please, don’t tell us that we can’t possibly understand your point > unless we read most of your collected works. I’d like to see the evidence > in the form of citations from late Peirce (since you’ve already given us > those from 1866), along with your present remarks to the point, with a > minimum of obfuscation, and without vague remarks about how badly other > people interpret Peirce. > > > > Sorry if this sounds impatient, but I admire John’s conciseness and would > like to see more of that from the rest of us on the list. > > > > Gary f. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] > Sent: 28-Jun-17 16:16 > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information' > > > > In my previous note, I forgot to check Peirce's own definition in the > _Century Dictionary_. > > > > Whenever there is any debate about Peirce's use of a word, it's useful to > check whether he happened to have defined that word in the _Century > Dictionary_. Following is his word list: > > http://www.pragmaticism.net/peirce_cendict_wordlist.pdf > > > > Then look up that word and get a .JPG image of the page: > > http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/ > > > > For the word 'information', I took the above steps and extracted his > definition and quotations. See the attached information.jpg > > > > Note the emphasis on the method of communication or derivation. > > > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
