Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 17

Posted on November 13, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • (14) • (16)
Re: Peirce List • Tom Gollier

I meant to write more last time but got waylaid by an onslaught of weather and progress on this topic is likely to be glacial for now.  But I have been mulling over Tom Gollier’s comments all the while and the best I can do so far by way of getting our minds on the same page is simply to assemble our words on this one.

JA:
There are many conceptions of truth — linguistic, model-theoretic, proof-theoretic — for the moment I’m focused on cybernetics, systems, and experimental sciences and this is where the pragmatic conception of truth fits what we naturally do in those sciences remarkably well.
The main thing in those activities is the relationship among symbol systems, the world, and our actions, whether in thought, among ourselves, or between ourselves and the world.
So the notion of truth we want here is predicated on three dimensions:  the patch of the world we are dealing with in a given application, the systems of signs we are using to describe that domain, and the transformations of signs we find of good service in bearing information about that piece of the world.
TG:
First, assuming that “symbol systems” are more or less consistent and complete a priori structures of Thirdness and “the world” is existential Secondness, the question of “truth” seems to be just what “actions” will bridge the abyss between them.  “Thought” alone doesn’t, but thought “among ourselves” (the a priori method) might have a shot at it.  Scientific experimentation seems to be pretty good at it, but …
Secondly, assuming those systems of Thirdness are finite while the world of Secondness is both interconnected and infinite, any claim to truth must be made in the face of leaving something, a lot, out of it.

There is much about “the relationship among symbol systems, the world, and our actions, whether in thought, among ourselves, or between ourselves and the world” to mull over here.  (Suddenly I have a craving for cider …)

cc: Systems Science • Structural Modeling • Peirce List • Ontolog Forum • Cybernetics

Posted in Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Coherence, Concordance, Congruence, Consensus, Convergence, Correspondence, Dewey, Fixation of Belief, Information, Inquiry, John Dewey, Kant, Logic, Logic of Science, Method, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Truth, Truth Theory, William James | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 16

Posted on November 11, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • 14
Re: Peirce List • Tom Gollier

Staying focused on a set objective has never been my strong point so let me emblazon the following emblem by way of keeping my eyes on the prize.

For the moment I’m focused on cybernetics, systems, and experimental sciences and this is where the pragmatic conception of truth fits what we naturally do in those sciences remarkably well.

I’ve been planning to dig up a few choice texts to illustrate the links among cybernetic, pragmatic, and scientific thinking in general, but most of my books are still packed in boxes from our move last year, so I’ll consider myself moved to keep unpacking.

Right now though I’ve got to go shovel some snow …

cc: Systems Science • Structural Modeling • Peirce List • Ontolog Forum • Cybernetics

Posted in Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Coherence, Concordance, Congruence, Consensus, Convergence, Correspondence, Dewey, Fixation of Belief, Information, Inquiry, John Dewey, Kant, Logic, Logic of Science, Method, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Truth, Truth Theory, William James | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 15

Posted on November 10, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

The way of inquiry being blocked on Wikipedia, I saved the last version of Pragmatic Truth I worked on to several other wikis.  The current state of that article fork begins as follows:

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Pragmatic theory of truth refers to those accounts, definitions, and theories of the concept truth distinguishing the philosophies of pragmatism and pragmaticism.  The conception of truth in question varies along lines reflecting the influence of several thinkers, initially and notably, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, but a number of common features can be identified.  The most characteristic features are (1) a reliance on the pragmatic maxim as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts, truth in particular, and (2) an emphasis on the fact that the product variously branded as belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of a process, namely, inquiry.

Document History

cc: Systems Science • Structural Modeling • Peirce List • Ontolog Forum • Cybernetics

Posted in Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Coherence, Concordance, Congruence, Consensus, Convergence, Correspondence, Dewey, Fixation of Belief, Information, Inquiry, John Dewey, Kant, Logic, Logic of Science, Method, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Truth, Truth Theory, William James | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 5

Posted on November 9, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • (5) • (7)
Re: FB | Semeiotics • Gary Herstein

Continuing questions about “infinite semiosis” vs. “unbounded semiosis” prompt me to make another comment by way of bringing our focus to bear on the empirical context of semiosis and sign relations.

The semiotic question goes back to a line from Peirce and the uses later writers like Eco and Derrida made of it.  But the real issue is not about the cardinality or topology of any sub-posed continuum, “signiferous ether”, or semiotic medium so much as the empirical data streams we actually have, which are captured categorically and coded discretely as sequences of signs.

cc: Cybernetics (1) (2) • Ontolog • Peirce (1) (2) • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 4

Posted on November 7, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 2

It’s a common mistake to confound infinite with unbounded.  A process can continue without end and still be “bounded in a nutshell”.  So a sign process can pass from sign to interpretant sign to next interpretant sign ad infinitum without ever leaving a finite set of signs.

The number of questions I got about that statement tells me I should have delineated the context in which it was set a little more fully.

A sign process in this context is simply a sequence of signs, of the sort we might observe in communicational, computational, or experimental settings.  For people who remember the more ancient arts of AI, cognitive science, and cybernetics, it may help to recall the orders of considerations arising in protocol analysis.

It goes with this territory to assume the formal equivalent of categorical perception.  This means we can set aside the subtleties of token haecceity — the nominal distinctiveness of every individual sign instance — along with the possibility of signs being sampled from a continuous medium.

In this setting we are left with two interpretations for infinite and bounded, depending on whether the sign domain has a quantitative measure defined on it, or not.  In the first case, bounded means the sequence never exceeds a finite bound in the relevant measure.  In the second case, bounded means the sequence never leaves a finite set.

cc: Cybernetics (1) (2) • Ontolog • Peirce (1) (2) • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 14

Posted on November 6, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Cybernetic Communications • Stephen Paul King

There are many conceptions of truth — linguistic, model-theoretic, proof-theoretic — for the moment I’m focused on cybernetics, systems, and experimental sciences and this is where the pragmatic conception of truth fits what we naturally do in those sciences remarkably well.

The main thing in those activities is the relationship among symbol systems, the world, and our actions, whether in thought, among ourselves, or between ourselves and the world.  So the notion of truth we want here is predicated on three dimensions:  the patch of the world we are dealing with in a given application, the systems of signs we are using to describe that domain, and the transformations of signs we find of good service in bearing information about that piece of the world.

I’ll dig up some material on the pragmatic conception of truth …

cc: Systems Science • Structural Modeling • Peirce List • Ontolog Forum • Cybernetics

Posted in Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Coherence, Concordance, Congruence, Consensus, Convergence, Correspondence, Dewey, Fixation of Belief, Information, Inquiry, John Dewey, Kant, Logic, Logic of Science, Method, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Truth, Truth Theory, William James | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Pragmatic Truth • Discussion 13

Posted on November 3, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society • John Corcoran

I looked at John Corcoran’s contribution on “Formalizing Pragmatic Truth” but did not see anything near enough what I’d recognize as a pragmatic theory of truth.

Pragmatic inquiry into a candidate concept of truth would begin by applying the pragmatic maxim to clarify the concept as far as possible and a pragmatic definition of truth, should any result, would find its place within Peirce’s theory of logic as formal semiotics, in other words, stated in terms of a formal theory of triadic sign relations.

Resources

cc: Systems Science • Structural Modeling • Peirce List • Ontolog Forum • Cybernetics

Posted in Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Coherence, Concordance, Congruence, Consensus, Convergence, Correspondence, Dewey, Fixation of Belief, Information, Inquiry, John Dewey, Kant, Logic, Logic of Science, Method, Peirce, Philosophy, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Truth, Truth Theory, William James | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • Discussion 3

Posted on October 30, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Questions about the use of “semiotic triangles” and “semiotic triskelia” to represent triadic sign relations have come up again, as they often do in the wider world, prompting me to revisit an earlier comment on the subject and to tri, tri again to render the issues as clear as I can, otherwise we appear doomed never to get off triangle one.

Re: Semiotic Triangle • (1) • (2) | John Corcoran • (1) • (2)

Concepts for Peirce are mental symbols, so they fall under the general designation of signs.  For triadic sign relations in general, then, we are dealing with a triadic relation among (1) objects of signs, (2) signs of objects, and (3) what Peirce calls interpretant signs, or interpretants for short.  It is critical to regard the three designations of objects, signs, and interpretants as relational roles not ontological essences.  It is also critical to distinguish the following things:

  • The extended sign relation L as a subset of a cartesian product O \times S \times I,
  • The elementary sign relation as an ordered triple (o, s, i) in O \times S \times I,
  • The places forming an ordered triple (o, s, i),
  • The elements o, s, i filling those places.

Triangles like the one linked above have long been used to introduce the idea of a triadic sign relation.  They have the unintended consequence, however, of leading people to miss all the points I mentioned above.  So it’s wise to move quickly on to better pictures and more detailed descriptions.

Resources

cc: Cybernetics (1) (2) • Ontolog • Peirce (1) (2) • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Logic, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 1

Posted on October 29, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

This is a Survey of blog and wiki resources on the theory of signs, variously known as semeiotic or semiotics, and the actions referred to as semiosis which transform signs among themselves in relation to their objects, all as based on C.S. Peirce’s concept of triadic sign relations.

Elements

Sources

Blog Series

  • Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Relation Theory • (1)
  • C.S. Peirce • Algebra of Logic ∫ Philosophy of Notation • (1) • (2)

Blog Dialogs

References

  • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1992), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, The Eleventh International Human Science Research Conference, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.
  • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52.  Archive.  Journal.  Online.
Posted in C.S. Peirce, Logic, Mathematics, Peirce, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiosis, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

The Difference That Makes A Difference That Peirce Makes • 32

Posted on October 27, 2019 by Jon Awbrey

Re: FB | Foundations of Mathematics • John Corcoran

There was a huge — and of course ultimately futile — discussion of truth theories back in 2005 when the Wikipediot article on Truth was under development.  Pragmatists of one stripe or another from the Peirce List ventured in vain to explain the difference between (1) “classical” correspondence theories, (2) consensus or “social” theories, and (3) Peircean pragmatic — I’m guessing what Tarski meant by “utilitarian” — theories of truth.  I’ll dig up some links and forks when I get a chance.

cc: Cybernetics • Ontolog Forum • Peirce List • Structural Modeling • Systems Science

Posted in Analogy, C.S. Peirce, Communication, Descriptive Science, Fixation of Belief, Formal Systems, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Normative Science, Paradigms, Peirce, Pragmatic Maxim, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Triadicity | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments