Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

[sb]

Ben, Jerry, list,

Ben, i also like to thank you. This is exactly what i was speaking about.

Best,
Stefan


Am 20. Juli 2016 22:46:54 MESZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee :
>Ben, Stefan, list:
>
>
>
>Ben, thank you for that really great contribution.  I must keep it for
>my
>records.
>
>Among other things, I recognized in it many ideas embedded in Plato’s
>fingers example (cf., 523c-525a), which interestingly, focuses on the
>sense
>of sight.
>
>
>
>The other matter is regarding the beautiful as opposed to *the
>Beautiful*.  If
>it is a matter of esthethics, do you think we can come to agreement on
>a
>notion of the *best* as a social principle?  It appears we do, more or
>less.  For example, Lebron James is currently the best basketball
>player…unless it’s Steph Curry.  But Lebron is bigger and plays better
>defense…but Curry is a better shooter and dribbler.  Cavs won the
>championship.  Warriors won last year.  Still, it is either Curry or
>James
>but not Thompson, or Smith… So, if not Curry or James, which, and for
>what
>reason?
>
>
>
>Can we not apply this type of reasoning to the question of *the best*
>scientific
>method or does it devolve into something like what is the best meal? 
>For
>certainly, taste is of such an individual nature and there are such
>different tastes, there is no good reason to pursue an idea of the best
>meal...or "the best scientific method".  If it devolves, then all
>potential
>benefits that come from considering the low with respect to the high
>disintegrates.  There is no longer a good way of persuading others of
>how
>to judge goodness of qualities.
>
>
>
>I think this is where the *divine* is useful.  Many things are
>beautiful
>but not all beautiful things are divine.  Many log spirals are
>beautiful
>but the phi spiral is divine.  Why divine?  *Because by their fruits ye
>shall know them.  *In other words, Nature provides a “solid ground of
>fact”
>where we have strong/weak assurances that we need not shift our footing
>while "walking upon a bog, and can only say, this ground seems to hold
>for
>the present.  Here I will stay till it begins to give way. (EP 2:55)”
>Recognition of revelation as true opinion will depend on whether strong
>or
>weak and piety.  The divine serves as the object of piety.  Ethics
>follows
>esthetics.
>
>
>
>One, two, three…Beauty, Goodness, Truth….Feeling, Reaction,
>Thought…esthetics, ethics, logic….spiritedness, desire, reason…sophist,
>statesman, philosopher.
>
>
>
>As for how esthetics might be pleasing to our consciousness, perhaps
>the
>answer has to do with constructing a well-ordered soul because not only
>is
>that just, it is also happy.
>
>
>
>“A man is just if the rational part of his soul is wise and rules and
>if
>the spirited part, being the subject and ally of the rational part,
>assists
>it in controlling the multitude of desires…This means however that only
>the
>man in whom reason properly cultivated rules the two other parts
>properly
>cultivated, i.e. only the wise man, can be truly just (cf. 442c); the
>soul
>cannot be healthy if one of its parts…is atrophied. No wonder then that
>the
>just man eventually proves to be identical with the philosopher. “
>
>~Strauss, City and Man
>
>__
>
>
>
>One other thing:
>
>You said, “The spiral enters through the senses as an esthetic image of
>a
>natural material, nature promises definite [I would amend this to
>*infinite*
>--BenN) interrelations that can be made intelligible through use and
>development “
>
>
>
>I’m so glad you amended it, though I respectfully disagree (more or
>less)!  I believe this is the central distinction in Dewey and Peirce’s
>ideas on convergence to truth.  Phi spirals on mouse corneas occupy an
>~500um field.  One question is whether at the infinite limit, a
>community
>of inquirers can ever solve this issue to satisfaction or whether the
>symbol will continue to grow, whether there will remain interrelations
>that
>require solving.
>
>
>For this situation to even be worthy of consideration to speak on
>convergence, we have to admit the argument as a representative
>argument.  That is, we need to agree at the outset that this example
>sensibly captures the essence that is implied of the Dewey/Peirce
>distinction on Truth.  It is possible that we can never give an exact
>solution to this situation but find that exactness is not desirable
>because
>of social principles.  That is, we might simply get bored after we deem
>no
>more information is worth having; that we have reached the limit of
>measurement and construction.
>
>
>
>With best wishes,
>Jerry Rhee
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clark Goble  wrote:
>
>> (Sorry, I accidentally sent that last post while still working on it.
>So
>> take it in terms of working out ideas and forgive me for not having a
>> finished thought)
>>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 6:02 PM, sb  wrote:
>>
>> "It is a particular interesting thing, how scholars, who dedicate
>their
>> whole lifes to the separating of fiction

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Stephen Jarosek]

On the matter of anti-science and anti-rational, you raise an important point, 
Harold. Any theoretical edifice that does not have a compelling axiomatic 
framework to guide it is just scientism masquerading as science. An axiomatic 
framework is essential… like a corporation’s mission statement, it relates to 
strategy, and properly accounting for cause and effect. We know that Darwinism 
is not up to the task, for example, because it does not properly factor in the 
implications of entropy and the persistence of complexity across time. Natural 
selection relying on mutations, as the epitome of the dumb-luck hypothesis, is 
a joke. The whole infotech narrative on which genocentrism relies, in all its 
absurd inconsistencies, is a joke. I mean, genetic “data” (software) but no 
account of the “computer” that might “process” it? How anti-science is that? 
Neo-Darwinism is secular woo on steroids, lurching between ignorance and 
absurdity. A bucket of arbitrary facts and observations does not a science 
make. It is scientism that is anti-scientific… a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo 
authorized in the spirit of credentialism. We witness its abysmal failure in 
the breakdown of the peer-review process**. Of course the priests of scientism 
will be reflexively hostile to any encroachment on their dogma. It has been 
this way throughout history, whenever the most parochial religions encountered 
threats to their cherished beliefs.

**
Horton, R. (2015, April 11). Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 
Vol 385. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from  
 
http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf
Binswanger, M. (2014). Excellence by Nonsense: The Competition for Publications 
in Modern Science (S. Bartling & S. Friesike, Eds.). Retrieved July 18, 2015, 
from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_3/fulltext.html 
 Springer Link, Opening Science

 

From: Harold Orbach [mailto:h...@ksu.edu] 
Sent: Monday, 25 July 2016 8:30 AM
To: online_sadhu_sa...@googlegroups.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

 

Steven Jarosek confuses BF Skinner with JB Watson but also misrepresents Watson:

Skinner did not use rats but pigeons and human subjects, his own children in 
his famous Skinner nox.

Watson did his PhD with the white rat, but at Chicago used a large variety of 
animals for ethnographic observations and at Johns Hopkins is most famous for 
his experiments with infants, e.g., the Little Hans experiment.  After leaving 
Hopkins because of his affair with his assistant, later his wife, he went into 
the advertising field where he revolutionized the way grocery stores were 
organized, using open shelves and checkout counter displays of small items to 
encourage impulse buying.  He also revolutionized radio and in turn modern TV 
advertising by using loud, jarring and speeded up voice tracks to get 
listener's attention and capture their impulses to respond.  That is, he 
"experimented" on vast human subject populations.

 

I find this whole line of religious spiritual anti-scientific and anti- 
rational propagandizing to be inconsistent with exploring Peirce's work and 
views or attempting to criticize and modify them.  In the process, Peirce as a 
human with faults and follies is ignored as is his relation to contemporary 
pragmatism.

 

Harold L. Orbach 

Emeritus, Kansas State University

PhD, University of Minnesota


Sent from my iPhone


On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:

There was a time when homely grandmothers fussing over their pets were more in 
touch with principles of consciousness than scientists in labcoats, back in the 
days of Pavlov or BF Skinner, performing experiments on dogs and rats. One 
understood the sentient nature of other non-human creatures better than the 
other, even though the former were routinely disparaged with charges of 
anthropomorphism. The irony… anthropomorphism pitted against anthropocentrism. 
Anthropocentrism relates to the materialist, infotech anthropocentrism 
portraying humans as the most special products of Darwinian evolution, that 
most complex, most perfect and intelligent of all of dumb luck’s creation. I 
think that homely grandmothers, by far, held the more realistic interpretation.

Indeed, as much as I am a staunch critic of feminism, I must admit that the 
single one thing that I am grateful to feminists for is how they’ve opened up 
the narrative on consciousness (e.g., Dian Fossey and her work with primates). 
If it wasn’t for feminists, we’d still be stuck in BF Skinner… it almost hurts 
me to have to acknowledge this, but hey… let’s give recognition where it is due.

It seems almost paradoxical that those who are least “scientific” can sometimes 
hold a more accurate representation of the nature of things than those who wear 
their labcoats like a 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [Sadhu Sanga] How to judge what is pseudoscience?

[Clark Goble]

> On Jul 25, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Harold Orbach  wrote:
> 
> I find this whole line of religious spiritual anti-scientific and anti- 
> rational propagandizing to be inconsistent with exploring Peirce's work and 
> views or attempting to criticize and modify them.  In the process, Peirce as 
> a human with faults and follies is ignored as is his relation to contemporary 
> pragmatism.

Seconded. Lots of basic errors as to what contemporary evolution involves not 
to mention questionable mistakes about science. Throw in that I don’t see even 
a flimsy connection to Peirce and I wonder what’s going on.




-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .