John, List: JFS: I admit that Peirce does not use the word scroll in r670. But he draws some scrolls, and he shows one EG as a scroll and another with shaded ovals and says that they are "equivalent".
I appreciate the admission, and I already acknowledged the latter fact in an earlier post, even attaching an image of the EGs that Peirce provides in the manuscript. JFS: That is a clear indication that he was reconsidering something that he had previously considered heavenly (or paradisaical). Baseless speculation. For one thing, "paradisaical" is an allusion to the Garden of Eden, not heaven. For another, as I have pointed out twice before, the "cellar doors" remark pertains to "metaphysical speculation" in the context of a passage that is entirely about the line of identity. Remember, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is what Peirce intended" ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-05/msg00045.html). JFS: The absence of the word scroll in R670. L231, L378, and L376 is further evidence that it was banished to the nether regions. The absence of something is hardly evidence of anything. As I have noted in the past, an argument from silence is one of the weakest there is. Again, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is what Peirce intended." JFS: That is his fundamental insight in R270: a sign of illation in the notation itself is irrelevant. The relevant manuscript is R 670, and Peirce says no such thing in it. One more time, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is what Peirce intended." JFS: The evidence that the EGs of 1911 are Peirce's best version is overwhelming. Best from the standpoint of practical efficiency and pedagogical clarity, sure. Best from the standpoint of philosophical rigor, absolutely not. Different purposes result in different evaluations. Moreover, Peirce himself never calls it his "best version," referring instead to the Lowell Lectures and accompanying syllabus as "The better exposition of 1903" (RL 376, 1911 Dec 6), and later describing "the one Dr. Carus rejected" (ibid) all the way back in 1897 as "the most lucid and interesting paper I have ever written" (RL 477, 1913 Nov 6). Say it with me, "nobody can claim that anything other than an exact quotation is what Peirce intended." JFS: Nobody -- not you, nor Ahti, nor Francesco, nor anybody else -- has shown any evidence to the contrary. One of us routinely provides numerous and often lengthy quotations to support his interpretations, while the other relies almost entirely on bare assertions. As for Ahti and Francesco, they have written and edited several books and numerous papers about Peirce's thought, both together and separately. In particular, Ahti has now compiled *Logic of the Future* as the definitive collection of Peirce's texts about EGs, many of them never previously published. Frankly, those two men are far and away more accomplished and more authoritative Peirce scholars than either of us could ever hope to be. In any event, whether the evidence for one side or the other is "overwhelming" or merely persuasive is for the reader to decide. I rest my case. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 5:25 PM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Jon AS, > > I admit that Peirce does not use the word *scroll *in r670. But he > draws some scrolls, and he shows one EG as a scroll and another with > shaded ovals and says that they are "equivalent". > > If you look at the times and dates, his remark about heaven & hell was > the first entry during the daylight hours of June 13th. That means that he > wrote it immediately after reviewing what he wrote the day before, among > which were his two "equivalent" EGs. > > That is a clear indication that he was reconsidering something that he had > previously considered heavenly (or paradisaical). Note that R669 mentioned > cuts for negation and then added "more properly scrolls". The absence of > the word *scroll *in R670. L231, L378, and L376 is further evidence that > it was banished to the nether regions. > > Re a sign of illation: The primary purpose of any notation for logic is > the *representation *of information in a form that is sufficiently > precise for mathematical reasoning. All reasoning is done by rules of > inference, which are stated *outside *the logic notation. > > That is also true of every version of mathematics. There are no > negations in mainstream mathematical notations. All the rules of > inference are stated in notations other than the one that is used to > represent the math. Until the 20th c, those notations were *always* > ordinary language, supplemented with some variables and symbols from the > mathematics. > > Just look at Peirce's rules. He stated them in English, and they depend > *only > *on negation. That is his fundamental insight in R270: a sign of > illation in the notation itself is irrelevant. In L231, he dropped the word > *illative > *in front of *permission*. That's another word he sent to hell. > > Today, the most efficient high-speed theorem provers convert formulas to > conjunctive normal form (CNF), whose only logical operators are AND, OR, > NOT, and the universal quantifier as the default. And by the way, the > conversion of CNF to and from 1911 EGs is trivial. > > The evidence that the EGs of 1911 are Peirce's best version is > overwhelming. Nobody -- not you, nor Ahti, nor Francesco, nor anybody else > -- has shown any evidence to the contrary. > > 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
