User talk:The Tetrast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Do you know about subpages?
2 Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)
3 I have copied the "Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)" section above to the Talk page for the article itself. Please continue any further attributions discussion there. Thanks. The Tetrast 10:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
4 Peirce
5 Classifications
6 favor?
7 Sign relation
8 scientific method
9 Charles Peirce article
10 Philly meetup 6
11 Arthur Burks bibliography

[edit] Do you know about subpages?

Do you know about user subpages? For example, I copied the above to User:The Tetrast/1. WAS 4.250 07:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew, sort of but, earlier, I had such trouble grasping the link methods, page creation, and the connection between them, that I did it once and then eventually deleted it. Thanks for creating one. I'll probably keep it and clear out the Talk page so that people will feel it's okay to actually talk there. The Tetrast 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! The Tetrast 17:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. WAS 4.250 20:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)

Hi! I was just reviewing Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce). It's very good work and you clearly have a lot of expertise on the subject. However, my concern is that some of the content may have been taken from another Wikipedia page or other material available on the web. What are the external sources of the article? Wikipedia articles are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License which means they may be copied, but must be attributed, meaning we might have to link back to the original article/its history, or do a history merge (by this point, that seems improbable). And copyrighted material on the web may not be used in most cases.

Cheers! — madman bum and angel 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote or rewrote most of the "Classes of sign" section, some of it for "Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)" and some of it originally for the main Charles Peirce article. In the main Charles Peirce article, it appeared under "Types of signs" which was a subsection of "Theory of signs, or semiotic," which is a subsection of "Dynamics of inquiry", and some of that was in rewriting things which others had already written. In the main Charles Peirce article, I also replaced the "Types of signs" subsubsection with a "Classes of signs" subsubsection, and I wrote it. (I changed the title because "Types of signs" was always a bad title, since the word "type" itself is a label Peirce used for a certain kind of sign, the "type" as in the type-token distinction). Meanwhile, in the "Clases of signs" section "Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)" article, some phrases and a few sentences, I think, remain as written by others back in the main Charles Peirce article. For instance, the word "typology" was introduced by somebody besides me, and it proved a very useful word in discussing three of Peirce's most prominent typologies. (This in spite of "Types of signs" being a bad section title; if I had to use both or neither, I would get rid of "typology.")

The "Semiotic elements" section was originally the Peirce article in the section "Sign relations." I wrote a lot of it, including the bulleted definitions and the numbered definitions, but significant portions were written by others. And of course I've tweaked some of that stuff and others have tweaked some of my stuff.

The versions which I used as a basis for the "Semiotic elements and clases of signs (Peirce)" article had been reverted at the main Peirce article.

The main external sources were the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, and the definitions consist entirely in quotations from C.S. Peirce (b. 1839, d. 1914) himself. I did not copy whole unattributed sentences or paragraphs from Peirce, but some phrases such as "pure abstraction of a quality," yes. The main concern, then, will be with tracing the history back to the main Peirce article Charles_Peirce. I don't know anything about how to merge article histories. The Tetrast 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Revised The Tetrast 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators can perform history merges. I think the link to the original article should suffice for attribution, but I'll ask around. Thank you! — madman bum and angel 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The main external sources were the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, and ITS definitions, I should say, consist entirely in quotations from C.S. Peirce (b. 1839, d. 1914) himself. My definitions are not copied and pasted from there. Also I did use a long quote from Peirce, near the beginning. I don't think that there should be a problem there, but I'll inquire and I should be able to say by tonight or tomorrow. The Tetrast 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, some of my phraseology in the definitions of rheme, dicisign, argument, are so close to Peirce's, that I should footnote to the sources. I'll do that tonight (I'm at work right now) and review more generally. But it's still a matter of sentence clauses rather than longer passages. The Tetrast 18:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Revised The Tetrast 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The long quote is indeed in the public domain -- it was originally published in the in the Monist in October 1906. Google Books has it available with no registration required and in OCR text-only form as well. I've expanded the sourcing after the passage: "(Peirce, The Collected Papers, vol. 4, p. 551; originally in "Prolegomena To an Apology For Pragmaticism," pp. 492-546, The Monist vol. VI, no. 4, Oct. 1906, see p. 523)"

As regards the phraseology in my definitions of rheme, dicisign, and argument, I find that it's not as close to Peirce's sentences as I thought, and some is drawn also from things which Peirce said in A Letter to Lady Welby published in Signs and Significs. I want to work some more on it, but I have to go to sleep for work tomorrow. I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested that I could get it all done tonight. The Tetrast 00:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I notice that in "Classes of signs" I used the table of categories which I originally created in the main Charles Peirce article. I should just note that in the main article it's not in the "Theory of signs, or semiotic" section; instead it is in the "Theory of categories" section. So not everything coming from the main article came from the its "Theory of signs, or semiotic" section. Maybe I'm getting too detailed with this! Well, it's just a talk page. The Tetrast 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you copy something from one wikipedia page to another, you are supposed to say so in the edit summary; and if you forget then you are supposed to either say so in a subsequent edit summary or on the talk page. The idea is to fulfill the GFDL requirement for attribution in a reasonable way. Wikipedia is the largest and most significant GFDL copyrighted item in existence and since the issue has never been tested in court, it is expected that Wikipedia's customary practices will be influential if not defining in this regard. WAS 4.250 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have copied the "Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce)" section above to the Talk page for the article itself. Please continue any further attributions discussion there. Thanks. The Tetrast 10:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peirce

I have been meaning to thank you for your work on the Peirce article for some time. You are an asset to the project. Given your expertise, I was wondering if I could ask your advice: can you recommend eithe or both (1) readible and intellectually informative biographies of Pierce and also of Dewey (I do not know if you have read Monk's Biography of Wittgenstein but that represents my ideal for its lucid exposition of the theoretical and intellectual context, as well as the personal, and the clear but heavily contextualized exposition of LW's thought) and (2) very readible but serious accounts of pragmatism in its various forms (including pragmaticism)? I have read Menand's The Metaphysical Club and liked it very much but wonder whether there are not other equally well-written and engaging treatments that go into greater depth (but just as clearly - or moreso!) about the philosophical issues? thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! My expertise is a function of cumulative records, years of peirce-l, my handiness with search engines, my being energized about Peirce's classifications because of how I cross paths with him, and the handiness of online resources at Joe Ransdell's Arisbe and at Helsinki U's Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms, among other sites. Peirce ends up surprising everybody and I've won a few scholarly arguments with this or that professional because of it; everybody (certainly including me) takes his or her turns at being mistaken about Peirce, as far as I can tell. I haven't read any long biographical work on Peirce, and the only biography which I've seen praised without criticism regarding reliability was the fictional autobiography His Glassy Essence of Peirce written by Kenneth Ketner. So, second-handedly, I'd say that that is worth reading. (Even the Menand book came in for some serious criticism regarding its depiction of Peirce's views, at peirce-l.) The only full-scale conventional biography that I know of is the one by Joseph Brent. Ransdell thinks that Brent goes too far in calling Peirce things like "manic-depressive." Despite his differences with Brent, Joe (very Peirce-spirited) has two articles by Brent, "Pursuing Peirce" and "The Singular Experience of the Peirce Biographer" posted at Joe's Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway Website, go to http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/aboutcsp.htm and click on "Brent" in the left-side frame.

As for pragmatism generally, I'm not sure, I'm not familiar with James, Dewey, and the others. I'm a four-ist, I encountered Peirce who is a three-ist, and that's what I've been about for the past several years. As regards Peircean pragmatism (pragmaticism), I'm not sure that the definitive work has been written. There are at least four strands involved, the pragmaticism itself, the critical common-sensism, the Scholastic Realism (at first, about generals, then in later years, about modalities, e.g., possibility), and, of course, the trichotomism. The renowned Peirce scholar Thomas L. Short once mentioned to us at peirce-l the following works on Peirce's views of truth:

...Cheryl Misak's Truth and the End of Inquiry (Oxford 1991), Misak, ed., "Pragmatism" (1999 Supplementary Volume of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy), half the papers in which are about CSP's theory of truth, Christopher Hookway, "Truth, Reality, and Convergence" in Misak, ed., Cambridge Companion to Peirce (2004), Peter Skagestad, The Road of Inquiry (Columbia 1981), among many others.

The Tetrast 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Fascinating! WAS 4.250 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classifications

Thanks for getting back to me, I am not really up on Peirce or semiotics but my concern was that if someone arrived at this article otherwise than from Peirce himself, they would have little idea as to what it was all about (perhaps that's Derrida meant when he said...oh, never mind). Anyway, the introduction should be in its own section & set out the context of the article. Below that there shuld be the expansion. Hope that's not too meta for you. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I just tag new articles as I see them, I'm not a vicious ogre that goes around nit-picking. I'll leave it to you from now on. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The article is better for your involvement. The Tetrast 03:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just had another look at this. Very impressive. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I just keep plugging away as my spare time permits. The Tetrast 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] favor?

When you are of a mind, would you consider working on these two articles: Theory and Scientific method? My sense is that Pierrce has much to offer to our understaning of both but I think the people who most contributed to these articles were unaware of his implortance. You've done great work on the CSP article, but I hope you would bring you knowledge of Pierce to other, closely related topics. Night i suggest atarting with these two? Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That would actually be a huge task for me, I don't know much about the history of 20th-Century philosophy of science; I know that Peirce exerted some influence pretty widely, and it seems to me that some have misunderstood him. I don't even know where I myself stand regarding a number of ideas in those articles. The Tetrast (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I could find something to say about Peirce's idea of a hypothetico-deductive-inductive method. The Tetrast (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I leave it up to you. I know it could be a huge task - it all depends on how detailed you want to get. I just do not know who else is up to the task. Part of the issue is indeed 20th century philosophy and history of science and if you do not know that well, then you don't know that (e.g. Quine and Hempel - if you know anyone here who DOES know their work well, would you mind asking them to help out in this regard?) ... but even if Peirce lived a long time ago he is not just of interest to historians of philosophy, his account of scientific methods and the nature of scientific knowledge are still relevant and I believe influential and I am sure there is a place for an account of his views somewhere in these articles. Surely, his concept of abduction is very important and still relevant to the article on scientific method, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know anybody else who is active on Wikipedia. I've read Quine, but I can't even recall his talking about anything that sounded like scientific method to me. I don't think Peirce is only for the history books. I'll think about venturing some bits and pieces in those articles -- I have been usually incremental in my approach to the Peirce articles so far, though I've gotten stuck on his Scholastic Realism, where I don't have the Commens Dictionary's multitudes of relevant quotes from all sources to help point the way. Anyway, regarding scientific method, I'm not firm on Peirce's treatment of inference -- there were, in particular, two conceptions of the three modes which he developed. He preferred one of them but still wondered whether the other was right. It may be irrelevant to what's to be added to the Scientific Method article but I like to understand the ground that I tread, especially since, as far as I can tell, the general philosophical issue of inference remains hairy, especially in terminology. The Tetrast (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is a shame Wikipedia does not have more editors who are knowledgable in these areas. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sign relation

Jon Awbrey created a lot of wonderful articles in his field, then made the mistake of taking the acclaimed genius Charles Sanders Peirce's POV to articles like Truth where Peirce is just one POV among many. Jon got upset at not being able to portray that POV as "the Truth", and took his rage to WP:NOR where he self-destructed and we all agreed he had to be banned. He is now trying to disrupt Wikipedia. All the "war" you see is Awbrey puppets. Awbrey's wonderful articles on logic should be added to as you see fit. Please carry on. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scientific method

I think what you wrote is terrific. I think others might benefit from "racionization" being explained. Also, some might appreciate knowing more about Pierce's backgrond as a practicing scientist and as a philosopher. Finally, it would be valuable to know the status of his understanding of the scientific method today. This may go beyond your expertise. My understanding is, philosphers in the US and UK take him very seriously even today. i have no idea about praqcticing scientists., or sociologists or historians of science, though. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I should point out that what I did was edit and extend a briefer version of the section "Pragmatic model" that was already there. Scientific method#Pragmatic model (howsoever it stands now). Here's how it stood previously: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_method&oldid=173793268#Pragmatic_model

After editing the Wiktionary definition of "ratiocination", I linked to it from the Scientific method article.

As regards Peirce's background, I feel unsure about saying it, it starts to sound like boasting for him. There is a link there to the main Peirce article, interested people will follow the link, I hope. The Tetrast (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Peirce article

The subarticles have been deleted. Unfortunately, I think it's going to take Wikipedia several years to clean up all of the crap created by Jon Awbrey in his quest to make Charles Peirce the center of the universe. I rewrote the ampheck article yesterday, although I was tempted to just delete it. Could you take a look at some of these other articles and see if they look legitimately useful to Wikipedia:

I suspect some of these are anachronistic terms or neologisms that would be better suited as redirects or merged with larger articles. The tricky thing is that Jon created all of these articles and they all reinforce each other, so it's difficult to tell which ones are legitimate academic terms and which ones are simply pet terms used by Charles Peirce or Jon. I have no background in philosophy, so I was hoping you or someone with more knowledge could help sort through the mess. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

This will take a while. Right off the bat, I can say that the "Pragmatic Maxim" article is valuable. Right now it is pretty much the same as a post which Jon sent (maybe more than once) to the peirce-l forum, and which I think helped clarify for many people that the Pragmatic Maxim equates a concept's meaning not to its object's particular actual consequences but instead to the sum of the object's conceivable consequences. I may be able to add to the article in ways which further pre-empt confusions about the Pragmatic Maxim.

The article on the "continuous predicate" is about an idea which is at the juncture of various of Peirce's ideas -- on continuity, and on something which, in a later letter to Lady Welby, he called "the copulant" (a sign for a logical relation, neither denominative nor descriptive).

The more technical any given article of his is, the less I am qualified to judge of its worth, even in those cases where I understand it more or less (like the "Sign relation" article). I don't know whether there is a semiotic tradition within which what he does in that article is considered a fair (if simple) portrayal of sign relations. (Simple, i.e., one kind of thing for objects, another kind of thing for both signs and interpretants, no second set of quote marks for interpretants, etc.). No general reader will plow through those tables of symbols, though I could add tables using bits of ordinary language (and make the tables narrower while I'm at it). "Ennotation"? As defined therein, it seems an innocuous convenient term for a relationship that's "really there" in Peirce's ideas and is not "original research". But I don't have the background to say whether the article is valuable. My gut sense is that Jon makes Peircean sign relations "recognizable" by people who do databases or know their Boole.

Peirce has a vast swirl of specific ideas with their little curlicues for which at least some of those little articles come in handy.

In the case of an article like "Comprehension", where comprehension is defined as all of a sign's intensions together, it really would be useful to know which writers maintain that distinction beteen comprehension and intension, and a discussion of the term "connototation" there would be good too (apparently the original sense of "connotation" was rather closer to the current literary sense than to the sense currently encountered in discussions of logic). If Jon's definition is right and is the core definition among current logicians, then it's good to have at Wikipedia, since such a clear-cut definition of comprehension is hard to come by on the Internet.

That's all for the time being. The Tetrast (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note to whoever moves contributions from one article to another: The GFDL requires author attribution to be retained, and the customary way to do that at wikipedia is to add appropriate information into the edit summary and/or the talk page. In the case of articles like these that basically have one author, a statement like that indicating Jon Awbrey as the primary author of material in the article prior to (January 2007?) in both an edit summary (perhaps of a null edit?) and on the talk page would be appropriate. (Often I move content from one article to another and say in the edit summary "moved from name of article". That doesn't work if the article is then deleted. Why people don't just make the articles redirects instead of deletions makes no sense to me.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philly meetup 6

I'm working on planning the sixth Philadelphia meetup, and I'm looking for ideas and votes about the place and location. Since you RSVP'd for the last one I thought you might like to weigh in. Thanks, and I hope to see you there! --TexasDex ★ 22:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Burks bibliography

This section has grown out of control--it is now half the article. The strictures of WP:NOT dictate that articles shouldn't be laden down with exhaustive bibliographies and other lists of references that are not directly related to the subject matter in the article--in this case, the biographical details of Arthur Burks. I tend to be inclusionist and look for ways to keep material wherever I can, but the existence of this section, particularly as long as it is, can't be justified by guidelines. Since you seem to have worked to build it, I think it's only fair to ask you to be the one to excise it. Robert K S (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)