Re: “On the Paradigm of Experience Appro priate for Semiotic”

* Comments on the Peirce List slow reading of Joseph Ransdell,
   "On the Paradigm of Experience Appropriate for Semiotic",
   http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/paradigm.htm

Peirce List,

Here is John Sowa's second reply to comments shared on the CG List:

On 11/8/2011 12:18 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
 > Those remarks were tailored to the ears of a particular body of readers
 > who are accustomed to hearing the word "formal" used as something akin
 > to a pejorative term, as in "mere formalism" or "merely formalistic".

But note the date of 1869 -- that was a year before Peirce's famous
paper on relatives.  It was also ten years before Frege's famous
Begriffsschrift, which everybody cites as the first complete version
of FOL with the first complete *formal* rules of inference.

CSP (1869)
 > All that the formal logician has to say is, that if facts capable
 > of expression in such and such forms of words are true, another
 > fact whose expression is related in a certain way to the expression
 > of these others is also true.... The proposition ‘If A, then B’ may
 > conveniently be regarded as equivalent to ‘Every case of the truth
 > of A is a case of the truth of B.’”

See http://www.peirce.org/writings/p41.html for the full article.

He used the word 'formal' several times in that article, and in each
case, he used it in the same sense as the 20th c logicians.  He also
contrasted that use with psychological discussions of 'thought'.

JA
 > But Peirce also used the word "formal" in another, more specialized sense,
 > in which it became the practical equivalent of "normative". In that sense,
 > his definition of logic as formal semiotic places logic within the sphere
 > of the normative sciences, where it normally belongs.

Peirce was very precise in his choice of worlds.  He often referred to
logic as normative.  Since he frequently used both words, one should not
assume that he might sometimes use one of them to mean the same as the
other.  In the following statement, he would have written 'normative'
if that had been the point he was trying to make:

CSP
 > Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. A definition of a sign will be
 > given which no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line
 > as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.

Here he is using the word 'formal' in contrast with a psychological
interpretation.  He makes a similar contrast in his earlier article
of 1869.  Since he is trying to make a similar point both articles,
the most reasonable interpretation is that he is using the word
'formal' in the same sense.

John

-- 

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol profile: http://knol.google.com/k/Jon-Awbrey#
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
polmic: www.policymic.com/profiles/1110/Jon-Awbrey