John, List, All: I invite anyone on the cc: line who is not a Peirce-L subscriber to read my post that prompted the response quoted below ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-04/msg00016.html). Of course, any comments that you would like to offer are always welcome.
JFS: Peirce rejected the 1906 EGs in four separate MSS from June to December 1911. As I have repeatedly shown previously by excerpting the actual texts, this is blatantly false. What Peirce rejects in those manuscripts is only his convoluted *description *of EGs in "Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism." He even states plainly that "the system itself is marked by extreme simplicity" and refers to "[t]he better exposition of 1903" (RL 376, R 500:1-3, 1911 Dec 6). JFS: On this issue, I trust Peirce's authority. Apparently not. JFS: Please reread my response to Francesco's note ... Please reread my response to that post ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-03/msg00066.html), which concisely summarizes and contrasts our positions. JFS: If you still claim that any of Peirce's earlier versions of EGs are better in any way, you have an obligation to explain how and why. I have already done so extensively and see no need to go over the same ground yet again. EGs with shading for negation as a primitive are unquestionably "better" for practical purposes such as explaining and employing strictly classical logic. EGs with the scroll for implication as a primitive are unquestionably "better" for philosophical purposes such as recognizing the derivative nature of negation as demonstrated conclusively by Peirce himself, analyzing the process of inference into its most basic and irreducible elements as demonstrated conclusively by Mohammed Shafiei's example of *ex falso quodlibet* ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-02/msg00019.html), and adapting EGs for intuitionistic logic as demonstrated conclusively by Arnold Oostra as well as (more recently) Ma Minghui and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:08 AM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon AS, > > Peirce rejected the 1906 EGs in four separate MSS from June to December > 1911. R670 rejected R669 by presenting a new foundation with a new choice > of logical primitives and a drastic reduction in the verbosity and > complexity of the 1906 version. L231 presented a clean statement of the > 1911 version. And Peirce explicitly repeated his rejection of the 1906 > version in letters of September and December 1911. On this issue, I trust > Peirce's authority. > > Please reread my response to Francesco's note, in which I showed that > every logical or philosophical idea that he mentioned could be explained > with greater or equal clarity, precision, and generality in terms of > Peirce's 1911 EGs. > > If you still claim that any of Peirce's earlier versions of EGs are better > in any way, you have an obligation to explain how and why. > > That means you must show one or more logical or philosophical ideas that > Peirce explained in terms of any of his earlier EGs that cannot be > explained with greater or equal clarity, precision, and generality in terms > of the 1911 EGs. > > 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] . ► 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.
