John, when it comes to cherry-picking and dogmatism about Peirce’s methodeutic, I have only one question for you:
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Cherry-picked from Matthew 7:3.) Gary f. -----Original Message----- From: John F Sowa <[email protected]> Sent: 18-Jun-19 01:48 To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semeiosis and Experience Gary and Jon, I agree that Gary has done a very good job in moderating Peirce-L for the past 10 years. I realize that it takes a lot of time and effort, and we should all be thankful for his long service. I'll also say that Jon has done a good job in gathering evidence from a wide range of sources, both publications and unpublished MSS. I have found many of his selections quite helpful. But scientific progress -- and Peirce insisted on treating philosophy as a science with the same degree of rigor as math & physics -- must always be considered a never-ending dialog with people debating pro and con about every controversial issue. The enemy of science is unchallenged cherry-picking of favorable tidbits while ignoring evidence to the contrary. That kind of bias is the most insidious block to the way of inquiry -- because on the surface it can look like research. GR > I disagree that I "frequently take Jon's side"--I am more interested > in stopping offense than defending anyone. I'll get back to this point later. First I'll start with the kind of comment Jon makes that instantly raises red flags: > JAS: There is nothing random about my words, and they were not > intended to "clarify or explain anything about [Peirce's] paragraph" > taken by itself. Instead, they constitute my attempt to combine > specific ideas from Peirce's various writings into a coherent synthesis. That phrase "coherent synthesis" is the focus of my complaint. I admit that Jon's words are not random. They are cherry pickings from diverse MSS by Peirce. But the synthesis is not Peirce's. Even when it may look like a good synthesis, no one can claim that Peirce would approve. Please compare the three paragraphs below. The first, from CP 4.7, states "thinking always proceeds in the form of a dialogue... between different phases of the ego." The second, from R 280, discusses that dialog as a "make-believe" which produces "the icon or emblem of a mental state of things." The third is Jon's paragraph, which contains many cherries from scattered sources, and only a few from R 280. Deleting passages from R 280 is tampering with the evidence. As Jon said, those passages were distractions from the focus of his claim. But in a court of law or of science, all evidence must be preserved, and any party may pick any cherries they like. In a law court, the judge and jury decide. But in science, every decision is fallible. Anyone, at any time, can reopen any case. For a "coherent synthesis" of Peirce's writings, there is only one judge who could make any decision, and he died in 1914. Just look at the literature about Plato, Aristotle, Jesus Christ, or any great author of the past. The case is never closed. Nobody has a right to claim that their coherent synthesis is what the author had intended. GR > Here's a recent sampling of such insulting snippets taken from the > archives: > > JS: That is the most anti-Peircean dogma imaginable. > JS: "anti-Peircean" and "dogmatic" > JS: If you're willing to do that, I'll offer to help... I admit that the first two statements are a bit strong, and I should be more diplomatic. But I could justify my point that the issues in question violated Peirce's methodeutic. As the example below shows, Jon cherry-picks items from various MSS to support his own preconceived agenda. That violates everything that Peirce wrote about reasoning in the sciences of discovery (which include philosophy). Jon refuses to back down or revise his claims in long threads in which various people show evidence to the contrary. That is dogmatic. The third point is a friendly offer of assistance. Jon is not a logician. He may have taken a course in logic at one time or another. But he has not done any research or advanced applications of logic. There is nothing insulting about making an offer to help. Gary's remarks are a bit strong: "I learn virtually nothing in your critique of Jon's argumentation and methodeutic." "I find most all of your critique baseless and misleading." Thank you for adding the qualifier: "While I may most certainly be wrong in this." But I have no animus whatsoever to Jon as a person. My only objection is to Jon's picking isolated cherries from disparate MSS to make a point that is often very far from anything that Peirce said explicitly. But proving that point requires a detailed analysis and comparison of many MSS. Any outside observer who isn't following every last detail and checking every citation can't see that point. Recommendation: To avoid endless bickering, we should avoid any strong claims about what Peirce might have meant or intended. Any claim about Peirce or his philosophy that is not a verbatim quotation is a tentative, fallible hypothesis. 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
