BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }JAS, list
I'd like to comment on some of your points in your response to Robert Marty -- 1. You, I think, missed, Robert's and Bernard Morand's points about what BM refers to as using quotations, where " an abusive usage makes them authoritative (dogmatic) arguments, lacking of textual context, and despite the fact that Peirce himself claimed to be a faillibilist." Taking a quotation out of context and inserting it into a different context, which is a semiosic action, obviously changes the meaning of the whole argument. But, also, BM wrote: "To my sense this tendency to restrict the discussions to quotes, multiplying them infinitely, repeating them as if they were mantras impoverishes the debates." First - flinging quotations at someone is not an argument. It actually is a tactic to silence discussion. What is this practice disloyal to? I see it as disloyal to science and genuine discussion - as well as Peirce. After all, your statement of " being faithful to Peirce's own texts when attributing specific views to him" is semiosically incorrect. You cannot claim [though I know you try to do so] that YOUR readings of Peirce are 'the correct, truthful reading' - since ALL readings are semiosic and thus, interpretations are derived via your own mediative mind and knowledge base. You seem to insist on a direct dyadic transference of Peirce's views...to yourself. How is this possible? How can you justify your self-assertion that YOU, above all, Have-Direct-Knowledge of Peirce, while others are fallible readers? I think this practice is a problem. 2] RM's reference to John Sowa is not an 'appeal to authority' but an evaluation of another scholar's work. The use of an 'appeal to authority' fallacy only occurs when it is used to justify an argument - and RM's reference to John Sowa was not in the context of an argument but as an example of someone else who has complained about the 'discursive practices' on this List where posters use Peircean texts as 'dogmatic mantras'. 3] I also disagree that the only 'moral authority' is Gary Richmond. That's unfair to him and an assertion of the irresponsibility of all posters on this List. This is not a day-care centre. We are all, presumably, adults on this list, and therefore, are each of us, responsible for our own behaviour and our own interactions with others. Therefore, for anyone of us to openly condemn, sneer at, mock, another , insist that that person speaks only as a 'tribal member' ; is too incorrect to respond to- and so on, - is our own responsibility. Therefore - your claim that 'it's not me, it's others who are doing bad things' is not an excuse for the problems on this list. And your refusal to accept that others - who are adults and scholars - are possibly making valid claims about these problems, with your assertion of:" yet another emotional rant full of baseless allegations and empty complaints- means that the problems will remain. Edwina On Sat 28/08/21 3:04 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: 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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2] On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 4:37 AM robert marty 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 MartyHonorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [4] https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ [5] Links: ------ [1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'robert.mart...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\') [4] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [5] 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.