John, are you seriously claiming that an infant’s crying is an instance of logical negation?
Peirce is using a metaphor to make a point about logic. He never approved of basing logical principles on psychology. Gary f. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen Sent: 6-Apr-21 03:58 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Paradisaical logic (was Phaneroscopy... John, Peirce: "Probably it will not be doubted that every child in its mental development necessarily passes through a stage in which he has some ideas, but yet has never recognised that an idea may be erroneous; and a stage that every child necessarily passes through must have been formerly passed through by the race in its adult development." -- For me Pierce here hints at the distiction between a logica utens and a logica docens. It marks the difference between semiosis subject to the normative sciences and semiosis which is not. As I understand your objection it is mainly a matter of you not accepting the use of a normal/ideal (Tonnies/Weber) type in order to bring out a difference. But in law the difference is recognized by the differences between children and adult law. I do think that also if Peirce had experience with small children being born, he could have written what he had. An example from experience. As already written, my son started crying at birth as usual. It can easily be questioned that that is an example of negation, it sooner is an utterance expressing discomfort, then of a full fledged negation. But if it is regarded a negation, it is not a contemplated one and may be taken as a conclusion from an inference drawn by ingrown habits. At birth he was fully covered with signs of leaking bloodvessels and emergency procedures were set in motion. Trombocytopenie was the hypothesis immediately expressed as highly probable. But it had to be checked of course, together with finding the source of the problem. So a bloodsample had to be taken soon after bird. A medic approached my sun in order to draw a sample. Now, in order to follow my response to this act, it is needed to know something about a previous experience of mine. At an earlier pregnancy a puncture was set through the placenta, I could witness it on a monitor. I saw the needle going through te placenta and saw pixels starting to move around the point at which the needle went through the skin of the placenta and just had time to say "Do I see a turbulence?" Hartbeat dropped and signaled the closing down of the bloodsystem to the brain heart cricuit. People came rushing in. Three days later the embryo proved dead. So, at the moment the medic approached my leaking child, I felt the tension in my muscles rising and sensed an urge to move in order to prevent the risk of another child loosing to much blood by being punctured. I didn't intervene because I regognized that idea of my intervention as possibly erronous. And, at least as not helpful in finding causes and possible consequences of his situation. This, in my opinion is what the quote is about. Auke Op 6 april 2021 om 6:15 schreef "John F. Sowa" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >: Jon A, Auke, List, Peirce wrote about Paradaisaical logic in connection with entitative graphs (1897). See the attached file CP3_488.txt. The text is somewhat longer than the 1911 version (from R669), but it is very similar. In both texts, he is making a claim that young children are in a state where they can't or don't recognize negations. He also claims that nonhuman animals can't learn to recognize negations. AvB> But why couldn't Peirce have written the passage, if he had witnessed [babies crying]? Babies very early and clearly show their approval of some situations (by making pleasant cooing sounds) and strong disapproval of others (by making unpleasant crying sounds). They do not begin in some state of paradise where everything is positive. Anybody who has a pet cat or dog also knows that they can quickly learn to recognize a command such as "No!' And the animals also learn that there are certain actions that are forbidden (at least when somebody is watching). JA> I generally take these sorts of just-so stories with a grain of salt. I believe that the 1897 example and the 1911 example are cases where Peirce violated his own principles. He wanted to make a point about negations. To justify the point, he created an example that he had never actually observed. Such so-called evidence isn't worth a grain of salt. 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
