John, Jon, List
John quoted Jon, then wrote:
Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> If each of my premisses is true, and the form of my argumentation
> is valid --which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below --
> then the conclusion must also be true; i.e., my argumentation
> is sound.
JS: That is the most anti-Peircean dogma imaginable. Peirce would
never state or accept any such claim.
Nonsense. To begin with, Jon is claiming nothing more than what a deductive
syllogism can. There is nothing anti-Peircean and dogmatic about it
whatsoever. And you should really stop name-calling ("anti-Peircean" and
"dogmatic"). It's intellectually unbecoming.
Here's a version of the syllogism Jon offers:
Semeiotic Argumentation for the Reality of God.
- Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself [that is a
basic principle of Peircean semeiotic, GR]
- The entire Universe is a Sign [Jon has offered textual evidence
that Peirce claimed this, GR]
- The entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself
[this necessarily follows, call that Object what you will; (It indeed
"necessarily follows" in a deductive syllogism; and this Object
Peirce (and
Jon) call God, GR].
John wrote:
JS: First, your premises are your interpretations of Peirce's writings
taken from different contexts where he was focusing on different
topics.
GR: Peirce offers us semeiotic tools to tackle all sorts of topics: Here's
one: Peirce presented arguments for the Reality of God. Jon's Semeiotic
Argumentation for the Reality of God merely follows Peirce's strong
suggestion as offered in A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God (and
elsewhere) in the context of certain basic semeiotic principles.
John wrote:
JS: As Peirce himself said, symbols grow. Formal logic is a fossilized
version of language. That is its greatest strength and its greatest
weakness. Fossils are precise only because they stopped growing.
GR: Who has denied this? What in Jon's argumentation denies this? And whose
thinking is fossilized here? Jon offers a way to think further about what
Peirce adumbrated in "A Neglected Argument." Personally, I am very
interested in efforts to help bridge the chasm between religion and
science, and it seems to me that Jon's efforts tend toward that
desideratum.
JS: Second, Peirce devoted his life to studying, inventing, and using
the most advanced logics of his day -- which are still at the
forefront of research in the 21st c. He would not accept any
reasoning stated in ordinary language as "unquestionably" precise,
valid, and sound -- not even his own.
We should all feel free to use Peirce's advanced logic in whatever ways
seems productive to each inquirer. Peirce himself reasoned "in ordinary
language"--thousands and thousands of pages of this discursive reasoning
ought demonstrate that point. Meanwhile, and again, a deductive syllogism
is sound as long as the premises are asserted to be true, and there is
nothing "anti-Peircean" about that (just consider the myriad deductive
syllogisms Peirce offers in his work).
JS: Third, Peirce's long experience of using formal logics enabled
him to do the diagrammatic reasoning in his own head in a way
that enabled him to write English more precisely than almost
anybody else. I have never read any commentary about anything
Peirce wrote that is more precise, or even as precise, as the
original quotations by Peirce.
GR: And yet you have written discursively extensively about Peirce's
thought, sometimes offering supporting quotes, often not, occasionally
offering EGs. I do not see any Peirce scholars "translating each statement
by Peirce to an EG," etc., you included.
JS: Peirce developed his methodeutic as a "critic" of reasoning.
Diagrammatic reasoning is the centerpiece, and EGs are his
preferred system. If you want to make any claim that resembles
the one at the top of this note, you must translate each statement
by Peirce to an EG, translate your statements to EGs, and apply
the EG rules of inference to derive the conclusion.
GR: That may be *your* ideal, and even were it Peirce's, again, you
yourself do not do that, and it is impossible for anyone to do so on an
email list.
JS: If you're willing to do that, I'll offer to help. But if you
refuse to do that, you have nothing but a puffy cloud of words.
GR: I truly doubt that Jon needs your "help," while insulting and hubristic
comments such as saying that if he refuses to accept your "help" that he
has "nothing but a puffy cloud of words" is, in my opinion, below any
serious scholar's dignity.
Again, you ought to stop this intellectual assault. "Blocking the way of
inquiry is the worst possible sin." John Sowa
.
Best,
Gary R
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_-8355873798251603263_m_8784749642680648983_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:13 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On 5/20/2019 4:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> > If each of my premisses is true, and the form of my argumentation
> > is valid --which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below --
> > then the conclusion must also be true; i.e., my argumentation
> > is sound.
>
> That is the most anti-Peircean dogma imaginable. Peirce would
> never state or accept any such claim.
>
> First, your premises are your interpretations of Peirce's writings
> taken from different contexts where he was focusing on different
> topics. The meanings of words, even for Peirce, shift subtly
> from one context to another.
>
> As Peirce himself said, symbols grow. Formal logic is a fossilized
> version of language. That is its greatest strength and its greatest
> weakness. Fossils are precise only because they stopped growing.
>
> Second, Peirce devoted his life to studying, inventing, and using
> the most advanced logics of his day -- which are still at the
> forefront of research in the 21st c. He would not accept any
> reasoning stated in ordinary language as "unquestionably" precise,
> valid, and sound -- not even his own.
>
> Third, Peirce's long experience of using formal logics enabled
> him to do the diagrammatic reasoning in his own head in a way
> that enabled him to write English more precisely than almost
> anybody else. I have never read any commentary about anything
> Peirce wrote that is more precise, or even as precise, as the
> original quotations by Peirce.
>
> Peirce developed his methodeutic as a "critic" of reasoning.
> Diagrammatic reasoning is the centerpiece, and EGs are his
> preferred system. If you want to make any claim that resembles
> the one at the top of this note, you must translate each statement
> by Peirce to an EG, translate your statements to EGs, and apply
> the EG rules of inference to derive the conclusion.
>
> If you're willing to do that, I'll offer to help. But if you
> refuse to do that, you have nothing but a puffy cloud of words.
>
> John
>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#m_-8355873798251603263_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-----------------------------
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 .
