John, List:

We (supposedly) agree that it is inappropriate to make sweeping judgments
about who is (or is not) capable of understanding Peirce's writings and
discussing them intelligently.  We (apparently) disagree about who among us
has been guilty of doing exactly that.  I would say that the pot is calling
the kettle black, except that the kettle in this case is quite clearly *not
*black, as any fair-minded observer would affirm.  On the contrary, Gary R.
is consistently an exemplary model of the "generosity of attitude" that he
advocates as List moderator.  We are all blessed to have him in that
role, which is only made more difficult by constant methodological
complaints.

Peirce's distaste for "metaphysicians" was prompted by their dogmatism, a
malady by no means confined to that particular branch of philosophy, as
some on the List have amply demonstrated over the years.  As for the
meaning of "charity" in this context, I have repeatedly provided links to
the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity)
in the hope that it would make very clear what I have in mind.  Here is the
summary paragraph.

In philosophy and rhetoric, the *principle of charity* or *charitable
interpretation* requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most
rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its
best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal
of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality,
logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a
coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According
to Simon Blackburn "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or
rationality in the subject's sayings."


For example, when interpreting different passages that Peirce wrote at
different times, we make every effort to reconcile them rather than
treating them as incompatible.  Another way to express the same principle
is in the brief explanation of the commandment against bearing false
witness in Martin Luther's Small Catechism--depending on the translation,
"put the best construction on everything" or "explain everything in the
kindest way."  Imagine how much more pleasant and (likely) more fruitful
our discourse on the List would be if we would all be more intentional
about taking such an approach, myself included.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:01 PM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> Jon,
>
> Charity is an important virtue in dealing with people. What made me angry
> is Gary R's attitude that he is an authority who is capable of making
> blanket judgments about the accuracy of anybody else's arguments.  He has
> the right to point out what he belives are mistakes, but he has an
> obligation to explain exactly what mistake was made in any particular
> instance.  (See below for options.)
>
> But mathematics is the universe of pure possibility.  The truths of
> mathematics do not depend in any way on what any humans may think.
>
> JAS> John Sowa has asserted
> <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00180.html>, "In
> logic and mathematics, there is no such thing as charity ... No amount of
> charity can correct a mistake in logic or mathematics ... When it comes to
> logic and mathematics, charity does not apply."
>
> That's true.. Mathematics is so precise, that mathematicians, scientists,
> and engineers use proof checkers to test their computations.  Google
> "Mathematica" and "Mathlab".  A computation is either correct or
> incorrect.  There is nothing in between.   That is a fundamental principle
> of mathematics.    Aliens in a far off galaxy would recognize the same
> theorems, but they would undoubtedly use very different notations.
>
> JAS> I also noted recently
> <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-05/msg00017.html> that
> according to Peirce, logic and mathematics are by no means exempt from
> fallibility, so I believe that charity *does *apply even in these
> rigorous fields.
>
> I agree that Peirce said that.  But he was admitting that his own
> mathematical abilities, athough quite high, were merely human.  No
> mathematician ever asks for or gives charity about the subject matter.  If
> someone points out a mistake, a mathematician immediately recognizes it.
> The only charity is in the human to human interaction:  The one who made
> the mistake immediately apologizes, and the one who found it is
> sympathetic.
>
> JAS> As I pointed out in my response
> <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00191.html> at the
> time, we rarely (if ever) engage in rigorous "proofs" on the List; the
> discussion is mostly about philosophy, including the *philosophy* of
> logic and the *philosophy *of mathematics, where charity surely *does *
> apply.
>
> I admit that word 'charity' is a traditional term,  But it's confusing
> because it blurs issues about the source of a discrepancy:  a mistake, as
> in mathematics; an ambiguitiy, as in most words in ordinary language; a
> fallacy, as itemized by Aristotle and other logicians; a failure to
> recognize some implicit assumption that is required for a sound argument;
> or a deliberate choice to adopt a different set of axioms and definitions.
>
> But note Peirce's many comments about 'metaphysicians'.  He was
> sympathetic to people who honestly wanted to learn.  That's a good kind of
> charity.  But he was not very sympathetic toward many others he criticized.
>
> 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 .




Reply via email to