Dear list,
Thank you for this great demonstration of ‘*charity*’. We have shown ourselves to be a learned person who can define a concept perfectly. For who can’t recognize an example when it’s on the table in front of them? Best, Jerry R On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:32 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > 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, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:15 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > 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 >> > >
----------------------------- 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 .
