BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly self-defines yourself as very particular about exact references - 'selected' from what I wrote - which thereby changed the meaning - and declared that I wrote:
1] " theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' " But I did not say the above. I never said: 'theorizing is an irrelevant exercise'. I said "if one substitutes one 'name/term' for another - that is an irrelevant exercise'. Substitution of terms is not theorizing - so - why did you change my words? Why did you remove 'substitutes' and insert 'theorizing'? 2] Nor did I say that theorizing is " undertaken only by people who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' . Where did I say this??? Nor did I say that I was against theorizing. What I wrote was: "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in the actual world - to explain this real world? As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." 3] I see nothing wrong, as a researcher, with asking whether a theory can be applied, functionally, to explain the real world. But I do see something wrong - on the basis of not only charity but integrity - with changing the words someone writes, with leaving out phrases, with putting in other words and phrases - to incorrectly present someone's comments. Why did you do this? Edwina On Thu 14/05/20 4:58 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List: ET: You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments about it. Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided links to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see the complete contexts for themselves. That is precisely why I always include the CP/EP/NEM/R citation and year of composition with everything that I quote from Peirce. ET: Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so? Again, I provided links to the original posts and only quoted the portions that I considered to be especially inappropriate. Why fill up an e-mail with lengthy excerpts? ET: I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. First, where did I make any such assertion? Specific examples, please. Second, I fail to see the allegedly "HUGE difference" here. It sure sounds to me like a demand that any and all theorizing must include "how these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real world." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote: JAS You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments about it. I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was against their isolation from the real world. You constantly ignore this fact and present a false image of me. Here's the quote from me that you used - you selected only a few phrases and left out the totality. Why did you do so? EDWINA" "As for diagrams and models - formulas and terms - I'm not arguing against them. I'm asking - can they be applied to real situations in the actual world - to explain this real world? As for asking others to provide examples - I've done so repeatedly, and have found that most prefer the isolation and comfort of what I call 'the seminar room' - ie, discussions around terms and models...far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." -------------------- My comments above are very different from your statement that I am against theories and theorizing; My comments do NOT say - as you rewrite them - that I consider that theorizing is "an irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who "prefer the isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room' Why do you write that I said this? I said that I am NOT AGAINST theories or theorizing. I did not say that I consider that theorizing is 'undertaken only by people'...etc. ..Read what I wrote - and please stop picking out bits and pieces and making my meaning completely different. I specifically have said that what I am against is when people don't provide us with how these theories can be applied to explain actual situations in the real world. That's a HUGE difference from your assertion that I am against theories or theorizing. It baffles me why you stick so tenaciously to such a misinterpretation - despite my actual words! Edwina Links: ------ [1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
----------------------------- 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 .