Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf : Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 13
At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/03/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-13/

Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society
At: https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/
Re: John Corcoran
At: https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/1733064366829548/

I looked at John Corcoran's contribution on Formalizing Pragmatic Truth
( https://www.academia.edu/s/e98bbab60f/formalizing-pragmatic-truth )
but I did not see anything near enough what I'd recognize as a
pragmatic theory of truth.

Pragmatic inquiry into a putative concept of truth would begin
by applying the pragmatic maxim to clarify the concept so far as
possible and a pragmatic definition of truth, if any should result,
would be formulated within Peirce's theory of logic as formal semiotics,
in other words, stated in terms of a formal theory of triadic sign relations.

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Stephen, All,

There are many conceptions of truth -- linguistic, model-theoretic,
proof-theoretic -- for the moment I'm focused on cybernetic, 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 ...

Regards,

Jon

On 11/5/2019 10:32 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Could we define truth as an invariant with respect to
> translations between languages?
>
> IOW, if a sentence is true, then it will be true in any language
> (that is sufficiently expressive to contain its semantic content).

>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "CYBCOM" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/454d0cb8-2b34-cde3-be95-c08bbca62be3%40att.net
>> .
>>
>
>

[Jon Awbrey]

All,

There was a discussion of "Pragmatic Truth" on the Peirce List
a couple years ago, in turn reviewing efforts made on pertinent
Wikipedia articles a dozen years before. It might be useful to
repost portions of that discussion here. Here's a link to the
anchor post of my blog rehash:

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 1

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/

I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted trying to
justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other than to reformat them
a little here and there, but some of their material may be instructive
for ongoing discussions, especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on
the nominal character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
To make the shortest possible shrift, we need to keep in mind that
"correspondence" for Peirce can mean "triple correspondence",
in other words, just another name for a triadic relation.

Resources
=========

* Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
: https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

* Correspondence Theory Of Truth
: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Note. The document histories of these OeisWiki and InterSciWiki forks
tell me these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions of 14 Feb 2007
and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 15
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/10/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-15/

All,

The way of inquiry being blocked on Wikipedia, I saved the fork of
Pragmatic Truth to which I contributed a goodly helping of morsels
to several other wikis over the years. The last of those renderings
begins as follows:

<QUOTE>

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
https://oeis.org/wiki/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
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/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.

</QUOTE>

Regards,

Jon

On 11/6/2019 2:20 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> All,
>
> There was a discussion of "Pragmatic Truth" on the Peirce List
> a couple years ago, in turn reviewing efforts made on pertinent

> Wikipedia articles a dozen years before.?? It might be useful to
> repost portions of that discussion here.?? Here's a link to the

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 16
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-16/

Re: Peirce List : Tom Gollier
At: https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-11/msg00004.html

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 maybe that'll remind me to keep digging.

Right now though I've got to go shovel some snow ...

Regards,

Jon

[joseph simpson]

Thanks for continuing to post this type of material.

Some of these ideas are becoming clearer to me.

Take care and have fun,

Joe

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 17
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/13/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-17/

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:
<QUOTE>
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.

</QUOTE>

TG:
<QUOTE>
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.
</QUOTE>

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 ...)

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 18
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/14/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-18/

We do not live in axiom systems. We do not live encased in languages,
formal or natural. There is no reason to think we will ever have exact
and exhaustive theories of what's out there, and the truth, as we know,
is "out there". Peirce understood there are more truths in mathematics
than are dreamt of in logic and Gödel's realism should have put the last
nail in the coffin of logicism, but some ways of thinking just never get
a clue.

This brings us to the question:

* What are formalisms and all their embodiments in brains and computers good for?

For that I'll turn to cybernetics ...

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 19
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/12/14/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-19/

All,

Going over the last few month's posts about signs, systems, and
theories of truth I see many unanswered questions deserving of
further attention. Seasonal diversions being what they are
my mind will be elsewhere the rest of the year so I've put
together a list of topics for future work.

(Too many links to post here -- please see the above blog post for the list.)

[joseph simpson]

Jon:

Thanks for your sharing your work with us.

I look forward to more of the same next year.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/structural-modeling/e0ace776-f5d0-7868-551c-6c3622ce2ca1%40att.net.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

Git Hub link:

https://github.com/jjs0sbw

Research Gate link:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3

YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw

Web Site:

https://systemsconcept.org/

[Jorg Largent]

Interesting challenge.  Two trials come to mind. In one, almost 2000 years ago, the question was raised, “Pilatos legō autos ha tis eimi alētheia,” (Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”)  The other trial, while technically fiction, contains an equally powerful challenge: “You can’t handle the truth!” (Col. Jessep, as played by Jack Nicholson in A Few God Men.)

Jorg Largent

---

From: syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2019 7:40 AM
To: SysSciWG <syss...@googlegroups.com>; Structural Modeling <structura...@googlegroups.com>; Ontolog Forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>; Cybernetic Communications <cyb...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [SysSciWG] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

 

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Systems Science Working Group Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syssciwg/e0ace776-f5d0-7868-551c-6c3622ce2ca1%40att.net.

[Jon Awbrey]

Jason, Lou, All ...

I don't think there's anything new under the sun here ...

<QUOTE>
Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but
were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation (αρετης κυβερνητικης),
do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors?

-- Plato : Alcibiades, 135A
</QUOTE>

Cf: Theory and Therapy of Representations : 1
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/13/theory-and-therapy-of-representations-%e2%80%a2-1/

Or, to translate it into contemporary terms:

"The 25th Amendment, Use It or Lose It!"

Regards,

Jon

On 12/18/2019 7:43 AM, Jason the Goodman wrote:> Dear Lou, would you elaborate your point using this as an example?
>>
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/letter-president-donald-j-trump-speaker-house-representatives/?utm_source=ods&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1600d
> Thanks - Jason
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:14 PM Louis H Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Stephen,
>> It should be noted that for all too many participants everything turns,
>> not on personal convictions or actual “points of view”, but on political
>> expediency.
>> And in the electorate much turns on the repeated and memorized phrases
>> that have been embedded in their long term memories by talk radio and Fox
>> news.
>> There is no education in USA for thinking or critical thinking and those
>> who design language for the electorate are clever enough to string slogans
>> and denials and complaints into an irreducible
>> tapestry that will not admit reason as an option (even for the
>> participants in the design of the language). The same phenomenon happens in
>> any group with jargon, including cyberneticians.
>> Best,
>> Lou
>>

[Jon Awbrey]

All,

One of my favorite epigrams is this line from Herodotus --

* τὰ δὲ μοι παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα γέγονε.

See:
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/03/24/%cf%84%e1%bd%b0-%ce%b4%e1%bd%b2-%ce%bc%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b8%e1%bd%b5%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b1-%ce%bc%ce%b1%ce%b8%e1%bd%b5%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b1-%ce%b3%e1%bd%b3%ce%b3%ce%bf%ce%bd%ce%b5/?fbclid=IwAR3hpCtUml1A-qm7UZ4kdX9IBzKxBw6otuMXeraCnJPbnflITJN3-g2LxM0

* My sufferings, though painful, have been my lessons.

So in mulling over the Brexit plebiscite I consoled myself with the thought that the Brits would eventually learn from
the sufferings surely to come.

But then my mind rejoined with this meme --

* Never underestimate a People’s capacity to blame others for self-inflicted wounds.

And I realized they probably wouldn't learn anything at all.

Of course, they're not the only ones ...

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 20
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/05/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-20/

Re: Cybernetic Communications ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/cybcom/YPeQiVJtpik/overview )
::: Louis Kauffman ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/cybcom/YPeQiVJtpik/pRYsoNA7CwAJ )
Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/ )
::: John Corcoran ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/1813265515476099/ )

Lou, Stephen, All ...

Various conceptions of belief in relation to pragmatic theories of inquiry, signs, and truth
have come up recently in several discussion groups. Some of the variations are too far off
my present track but if I stay the pragmatic course I'd naturally recommend the novel fork
taken by Peirce's 1877 paper, "The Fixation of Belief".

Reference
=========

Charles S. Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief",
Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), pp. 1-15
( http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm )

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 21
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-21/

Thanks, Klaus, I appreciate the way you immediately extracted
one of the overarching themes of Peirce's whole paper, indeed
of his whole work. That allows us to tread lightly past a lot
of verbal nit-picking about the differences among traditional
concepts like belief, fact, knowledge, opinion, etc. and get
right down to the more systems-theoretic ideas about states of
information and inquiry as a process that revises those states.

Here's a bit I wrote a few years back rubricizing Peirce's four ways of
moving from doubt to belief -- from a state of information so unsettled
it puzzles the will to one secure enough on which to act, should the need
for action arise.

* Tenacity, Authority, Plausibility, Inquiry
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/01/15/tenacity-authority-plausibility-inquiry/

My favorite polymathematician, Charles Sanders Peirce, gave a fourfold classification
of what he called "methods of fixing belief", or "settling opinion", most notably and
seminally in his paper, "The Fixation of Belief" (1877). Adjusting his nomenclature
very slightly, if only for the sake of preserving a mnemonic rhyme scheme, we may
refer to his four types as Tenacity, Authority, Plausibility (?? priori pleasing
praiseworthiness), and full-fledged Scientific Inquiry.

Reference
=========

* Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly 12, 1???15.
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm

Resource

========

* Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

Regards,

Jon

On 1/5/2020 3:59 PM, Krippendorff, Klaus wrote:
> I have refrained from this discussion of truth as I have
> other things > to think about but I found the attached paper
> by Peirce about the fixation of beliefs pretty convincing
> especially the distinction of the sources of the fixation:
> authority, logical consistency, habit or tenacity to which
> I would add social acceptability.
>
> What I found missing are methods of overcoming these fixations.
> Doubt is in My way of thinking not sufficient.
>
> I am interested in issues of liberation from oppressions.
>
> Klaus
>

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 22
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/09/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-22/

Re: Systems Science ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/H673ep6U_Ug/overview )
::: Scott Jackson ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syssciwg/H673ep6U_Ug/lQJ7Yr5DHQAJ )

All,

Discussions of "thinking and flawed decisions" arising in the Systems Science Working Group naturally brought the topic
of Pragmatic Truth and all its bedeviled vicissitudes back to this Peircean's mind.

I have often observed how belief systems act in a way like immune systems, generating "antibodies" to combat the
"antigens" of any ideas beyond their comfort zones.

Elsewhere, I described these phenomena under the heading of Information Resistance
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/10/information-resistance-%e2%80%a2-%cf%89/ )

* "The hardest thing to understand about information is people's resistance to it."

The locus pragmaticus for the study of belief systems
and the impact of information and inquiry on them is
C.S. Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief". See the
preceding post in this series for comment and links:
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-21/ )

Reference
=========

* Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly 12, 1–15.
( https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm ),

Resource
========

* Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

( https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth )

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • 23
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/08/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-23/

A recurring issue has come up again ...
time only to pass along a few links ...
more later, if I get a chance ...

Re: Richard J. Lipton ( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/about-me/ )
::: The Truth ( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/the-truth/ )

Just a random forkful of thoughts from a pragmatic peircepective ...

• Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/

Re: Cristopher Moore ( http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~moore/ )
::: Platonism and Pluralism ( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/the-truth/#comment-110590 )

The “irritation of doubt”, a state of uncertainty or surprise, marks the beginning of inquiry according to pragmatic
thinkers like Peirce and Dewey, so it's critical to acknowledge and value such states when they occur.

According to John Dewey, it is because of the human quest for perfect certainty that philosophy has inherited three
problematic viewpoints:

<QUOTE>

the first, that certainty, security, can be found only in the fixed and unchanging;

the second, that knowledge is the only road to that which is intrinsically stable and certain;

the third, that practical activity is an inferior sort of thing, necessary simply because of man’s animal nature and the
necessity for winning subsistence from the environment.

</QUOTE> — John Dewey • The Quest for Certainty

See Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry
At: https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

Resources
=========

• Truth Theory ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Truth_theory )

• Pragmatic Theory Of Truth ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth )

• Correspondence Theory Of Truth ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Correspondence_Theory_Of_Truth )

[Jon Awbrey]

Dear Edwina,

I think I can get the drift of what you are saying. At least,
I can see there is something monadic about the Tenacity method
of fixing belief or settling on what to believe, perhaps even
in the sense of Leibnizian monads, windowless, hermeneutically
sealed spheres of belief. But monads would say they've got that
pre-established harmony thing working for them, so I'm not sure
how to categorize that. At first, the Authority method appears
to be dyadic, Freud would probably call it a transference effect,
but we know people pick their authority to fit what they already
believe, so perhaps appeals to authority reduce to a monadic or
monastic model, after all, at least to a first approximation.
As far as the À Priori Plausibility method goes, things appear
a little more complex at first because it involves a community.
Sure, people can pursue the “What Is Pleasing To Speculate“ game
in the privacy of their own minds, but something about that way
of trying to settle belief remains unsettled and naturally drives
the hermitary visionary to seek out and try to convert others to
the Big Idea. So, yes, the missing link to Scientific Inquiry is
found in that Dialogue Involving Nature, that endeavor to commune
not only with other minds but with that ever-insistent-persistent
reality constantly thumping us in the head until we pay attention.

Regards,

Jon

On 6/8/2020 11:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon
>
> I'd say that a monadic or dyadic truth would usually be found in
> an authoritarian or tenacity or a priori of 'fixation of belief'.
> The triadic is the scientific mode.
>
> And above all, I think that pragmatics acknowledges Secondness; that
> there are 'real objects' out there, independent of our beliefs and
> experience of them. That is, it's against nominalism and conceptualism.
> And, it acknowledges Thirdness; that our knowledge base of this reality
> is capable, at least in the more complex organisms, of evolution and
> adaptation of its content.
>
> Edwina