Dan, you say, “not once in these quotes does Peirce say one starts inference
with the truth.” Of course not; one starts an inquiry, i.e. inferential
reasoning, by asking What is the truth of the matter?
One doesn’t begin by randomly gathering data, or by looking for confirmations
of one’s theory, but by asking the question that determines the parameters of
the inquiry. This is what Jon was saying, and Peirce too; only Peirce was
taking one step back in the process by observing that you don’t ask if you
don’t believe that there is a truth of the matter independent of your thinking
but discoverable.
Gary f.
} {
<https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dan Everett
Sent: 29-Mar-21 10:21
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and Peircean Category Theory
See, that is exactly the kind of problem I am talking about.
First, not once in these quotes does Peirce say one starts inference with the
truth. He says in these quotes that truth is the goal, not the beginning point.
Second, the only way to travel the path towards the truth is via
empirical/mathematical research.
Not merely comparing chapter and verse from Peirce’s writings (though that is
of course not irrelevant).
Dan
On Mar 29, 2021, at 10:15 AM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Dan, you ask, Does one really begin inferential reasoning by asking “what is
the truth of the matter?”
Peirce says (EP2:240), “Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing
as truth, or he would not ask any question.” Also that “all propositions have
one Subject in common which we call the Truth” (EP2:173). I consider both of
these propositions to be true.
Gary f.
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Dan Everett
Sent: 29-Mar-21 06:46
Dear Jon, All,
My remarks below.
On Mar 28, 2021, at 10:16 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
Sure, but what properly counts as "real data" in this context depends on which
of these two questions we are primarily trying to answer.
1. What is the truth of the matter?
2. What was Peirce's view of the matter?
When we are trying to leverage Peirce's insights in an effort to answer #1, we
must first answer #2 accurately, and his own voluminous writings are where the
"rubber meets the road" in that inquiry. One more time, someone who declines to
be scrupulously faithful to Peirce's own concepts and terminology will be off
the mark when attempting to apply them in other domains.
Does one really begin inferential reasoning by asking “what is the truth of the
matter?”I would have thought that truth can only be revealed at the end of
inquiry. It seems to me rather than one proceeds by looking at data and testing
hypotheses on one’s best understanding, approaching the truth asymptotically.
As to what Peirce’s view of the matter was, yes, that is very important. But
the best way to illumine others is to proceed by explanation via analysis. For
example, you do this very well in your discussions of mathematics, walking us
through examples of how, according to your understanding, Peirce’s ideas - if
they are as you claim - would work.
Since we know that exegesis of Peirce can be difficult (made much less so of
course by the Peirce Edition Project, one of the greatest intellectual
undertakings in philosophical history), examples help. For example “My
understanding of Peirce - give relevant quotes - has the following practical
consequences.”
“Real facts”(i.e. facts whose theoretical significance is clear) reveal
themselves as we work; as we reach consensus.
It isn’t that I don’t find all of these discussions incredibly useful! I do. I
just think that when we wind up quoting Peirce only instead of showing how the
ideas work out practically, we are not proceeding pragmatistically, as he would
have. He regularly revised his views in this way.
Dan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] with no subject, and with the
sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
<http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm>
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► 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 [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
