John, Peirce-list
For Our Information: Oxford UP has just published a book appropriate to this
discussion.
Peirce on Inference: Validity, Strength, and the Community of Inquirers, By
Richard Kenneth Atkins
> On Jun 8, 2023, at 1:16 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> Jon, Jack, et al.,
>
> As I wrote in my previous note (excerpt copied below), both Kant and Peirce
> presented positions that neither one had fully proved. Although I prefer
> Peirce's position, I must admit that his proof in CP 5.525 is flawed, and
> your version does not correct the flaw.
>
> JAS> By contrast, Peirce offers a very straightforward proof that the Ding an
> sich is nonsensical, which I have quoted before.
> CSP: It has been shown that in the formal analysis of a proposition, after
> all that words can convey has been thrown into the predicate, there remains a
> subject that is indescribable and that can only be pointed at or otherwise
> indicated, unless a way, of finding what is referred to, be prescribed. The
> Ding an sich, however, can neither be indicated nor found. Consequently, no
> proposition can refer to it, and nothing true or false can be predicated of
> it. Therefore, all references to it must be thrown out as meaningless
> surplusage. (CP 5.525, c. 1905)
> The flaw in this paragraph is in the phrase "after all that words can convey
> has been thrown into the predicate".
>
> Question: What words are being considered? Do we consider all the words
> that have been defined in the current state of Engllish (or some other
> languages)? If Peirce meant 1905, that would rule out the huge number of new
> concepts of quantum mechanics and other innovations in the physics of the
> 20th and later centuries. It's quite certain that no words could be found
> in 1905 that could adequately explain the life of a snail.
>
> In fact, nobody has proposed a precise definition of the word 'life' today.
> Physicians cannot reliably detect the precise moment when a patient dies.
> And quantum mechanics makes many issues impossible to detect or measure
> precisely. There is a huge amount that is unknown.
>
> In summary, Kant's claim is true for most of the things we encounter in our
> daily lives. Our descriptions cover only the parts we can detect with our
> senses and any scientific instruments at our disposal. As science
> progresses, people keep inventing more precise instruments. But there is
> still a huge amount that is unknowable in nearly every object we encounter.
>
> John
>
>
> Excerpt from: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
> Sent: 6/7/23 1:24 AM
>
> The quotation below summarizes Peirce's theory of science in the first
> paragraph, where the final opinion is a goal that might never be reached.
> One way to explain the difference between Kant and Peirce is that (1) they
> both understood the difficulty of analyzing every detail of the full
> complexity of the things we experience. (2) Kant was a pessimist who did not
> believe that anybody could ever really understand all those details. (3)
> Peirce was an optimist who believed that any question about the things we
> experience could eventually be answered if given enough scientists enough
> time to study the question and test it with all possible experiments.
>
> As a pessimist, Kant was correct in saying that the overwhelming majority of
> the details of the things we perceive are unknowable by us, But as an
> optimist, Peirce was correct in claiming that scientific methodology, as
> pursued by an untold number of scientists, could ultimately discover any of
> those details that may be needed to answer any questions we might ask.
> ________.
> "There is a definite opinion to which the mind of man is, on the whole and in
> the long run tending. On many questions the final agreement is already
> reached, on all it will be reached if time enough is given... This final
> opinion, then, is independent, not indeed of thought, in general, but of all
> that is arbitrary and individual in thought; is quite independent of how you,
> or I or any number of men think. Everything, therefore, which will be thought
> to exist in the final opinion is real, and nothing else...
>
> This theory of reality is instantly fatal to the idea of a thing in itself, -
> a thing existing independent of all relation to the mind's conception of it.
> Yet it would by no means forbid, but rather encourage us, to regard the
> appearances of sense as only signs of the realities. Only, the realities
> which they represent, would not be the unknowable cause of sensation, but
> noumena or intelligible conceptions which are the last products of the mental
> action which is set in motion by sensation". [CP 8.12-13, emphasis Peirce's]
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.
