BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I think we have to be very cautious here. I don't think that these
discussions on religion and logic have anything to do with bridging
the chasm between religion and science. They have no scientific
content whatsoever.
Furthermore, because an argument's single premises are true, in the
sense that they can be abstracted from a text's content and set up
as, in themselves, true -- and the format of their syllogistic
placement is valid, this does not make the content of this argument
true. It merely sets up a valid argument.
I, for example, question the soundness and truth of JAS's insistence
that takes Peirce's statement that 'the Universe is perfused with
signs' and then, matches it up with Peirce's concept that multiple
signs can be 'merged' to be considered ONE sign - to conclude that
the Universe is A single Sign. I question such reductionism, for
that denies the actual complexity of the Universe and indeed, the
functionality of semiosis - which includes, among its other functions
- the ability and necessity to 'make matter complex' rather than
simple. We can intellectually reduce a complexity to singularity but
can we make this an existential simplicity?
I also question the soundness of JAS's insistence that a sign
requires an external object - for my reading of Peirce is that,
indeed, the semiosic function requires 'dialogue' which does set up a
'this' and a 'not this' which interact. BUT, this external object is
only that when it becomes an integral part of the semiosic
interaction....and becomes an Immediate Object. Therefore - does
this externality, God, have any reality before being part of the
Universe as its Immediate Object? If it is forever outside the realm
of immanent semiosic interaction - does it have any reality?
And - as Jeff D has pointed out, a so-called external Object is not
necessarily morphologically external to the semiosic Triad.
Therefore, I think that we have to be very cautious about these
discussions.
Edwina
On Tue 21/05/19 12:31 AM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
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
wouldnever 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
writingstaken from different contexts where he was focusing on
differenttopics.
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 greatestweakness. 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
usingthe most advanced logics of his day -- which are still at the
forefront of research in the 21st c. He would not accept
anyreasoning 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 enabledhim
to do the diagrammatic reasoning in his own head in a way that enabled
him to write English more precisely than almostanybody else. I have
never read any commentary about anythingPeirce wrote that is more
precise, or even as precise, as theoriginal 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
hispreferred system. If you want to make any claim that resembles
the one at the top of this note, you must translate each statementby
Peirce to an EG, translate your statements to EGs, and applythe 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 ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[1]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:13 PM John F Sowa 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
[3]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
-----------------------------
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 .
