Dear list,
Any self-respecting follower of Peirce would remember his assertion that
*The only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim.*
So, if it is also the case that
*we ought to say that we are in thought and not that thoughts are in us..*
in other words, were it possible
to see himself in this respect,
as he himself would see himself
if he could duplicate himself
and observe himself with a critical eye,
what would he say of himself?
Would he say that “I boast myself to be a reasonable man"?
Would he say *this* is what I boast myself to be?
I mean, would a rational man ever say
“the only relevant "moral authority" is the List moderator, Gary Richmond,
and it is entirely up to him whether, when, and how to intervene”,
Would we agree that this is being *Rational*?
Why of course we would!
Because *that* is what being *Rational* means, amirite?
I mean, this is why we quibble and fight rather than state our ultimate aim.
For we quibble and fight instead of applying Peirce’s “method of science”
because
*there are **“expressive implicatures” that allow speakers*
*“to project certain qualities of their own act as significant aspects of
the message.”*
For why are we doing what we’re doing?
.. i*n order to* ultimate aim.
I mean, *everybody* knows that, *already*, amirite?
So much for power and Form, then..
This is us.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 2:05 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Robert, List:
>
> RM: This is a shameful manipulation that everyone can see. It offends
> scientific ethics.
>
>
> There is nothing shameful, manipulative, offensive, unscientific, or
> unethical about highlighting and emphasizing a portion of a direct
> quotation to make a particular point, especially in a context where it is
> being ignored or at least discounted. It is incontrovertible that according
> to Peirce in CP 3.559 (and elsewhere), the mathematician frames a pure
> hypothesis *without inquiring or caring whether it agrees with the actual
> facts or not.*
>
> RM: All these absolutely disloyal practices that Bernard Morand has just
> denounced ...
>
>
> Disloyal to whom? What matters here is being faithful to *Peirce's own
> texts* when attributing specific views to him. Why not just acknowledge
> disagreement with him where one thinks that he got something wrong?
>
> RM: ... after many others, and not the least, such as John Sowa, whose
> awareness of Peirce and scientific stature is indisputable,
>
>
> Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Peirce sharply contrasts the
> method of authority with the method of science.
>
> RM: I note that the debate has fallen to a level unworthy of Charles S.
> Peirce to whom this list is dedicated, and this without any moral authority
> intervening.
>
>
> I agree, but we presumably have very different perceptions of who is
> responsible for the degradation of the discourse here. Besides, the only
> relevant "moral authority" is the List moderator, Gary Richmond, and it is
> entirely up to him whether, when, and how to intervene.
>
> RM: However, I am not going to give up... simply, I would not waste
> another minute fighting arguments biased by such practices...
>
>
> In other words, a *substantive *rebuttal is not possible, so instead
> there is yet another emotional rant full of baseless allegations and empty
> complaints.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 4:37 AM robert marty <robert.mart...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> List,
>>
>>
>> JAS > . "As for CP 3.559, there is no"magic trick" involved in simply
>> recognizing that its last sentence is a *summary *of the entire
>> paragraph."
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is that last sentence. This is indeed a summary of CP 3.559. But
>> you, JAS, *summarize this summary* to the only part I underlined in bold:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"**Thus, the mathematician does two very different things: namely, he
>> first frames a pure hypothesis stripped of all features which do not
>> concern the drawing of consequences from it, and this he does* *without
>> inquiring or caring whether it agrees with the actual facts or not **(1*
>> *);* *and, secondly, he proceeds to draw necessary consequences from
>> that hypothesis."*
>>
>>
>> This is a shameful manipulation that everyone can see. It offends
>> scientific ethics.
>>
>> After the hodgepodge of quotes created in a few minutes that would
>> require a whole book to answer,
>>
>> After the "improved" quote from EDT kindly qualified as a humoristic
>> touch by Gary Richmond,
>>
>> After this "reconstructed" quote to cover up an operation to revise the
>> foundations of Peirce's thought,
>>
>> All these absolutely disloyal practices that Bernard Morand has just
>> denounced after many others, and not the least, such as John Sowa, whose
>> awareness of Peirce and scientific stature is indisputable,
>>
>> I note that the debate has fallen to a level unworthy of Charles S.
>> Peirce to whom this list is dedicated, and this without any moral authority
>> intervening.
>>
>> However, I am not going to give up... simply, I would not waste another
>> minute fighting arguments biased by such practices...
>>
>> Following serenely ...
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robert Marty
>> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
>> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
