Talk:Charles Peirce/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"Signifier" and "Signified"

Using the (rather Saussurian, or structuralist) notions of "signifier" and "signified" in order to present or explain Peirce's theory of the sign is misleading. In Saussurian parlance (or linguistic parlance at large) they rather correspond to the "sound" and "mental image" of the (diadic) sign, not to a reference process, and definitely not to Peirce's "representamen" and "object". I propose using Peirce's own analytical vocabulary (representamen, ground, object, interpretant), unless discussed otherwise. I have corrected accordingly the "icon-symbol-index" section. -- Typewritten 14:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph to the "Peirce's philosophy" section

The section regarding Peirce's philosophy is pitiful. It begins with an opinionated and one-sided quote, giving the impression that his philosophy is of little consequence, when nothing could be further from the truth. From this point on it is difficult to tell what the purpose of the introductory paragraph is. If it is to give an impartial introduction to the subsections of his philosophy it is utterly unnecessary. It was either written by one idiot with an axe to grind, a multitude of idiots none of whom fully understand his philosophy, or some combination of the two. It should either be rewritten or removed.

-What is more, Peirce was not only familiar with a "few lines" of Kant but thoroughly understood. Also he was not only a philosopher for five or ten years as even a cursory knowledge of his life would reveal.

-If no one has any objections I am going to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnDavidBurgess (talk • contribs) 04:39, 15 November, 2006 (UTC).

No objection, I think you can go ahead. -- Typewritten 23:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic as formal semiotic — Material for abstracting

The following material from Putnam is probably important, but way too long for the point it makes. I have moved it here for abstracting before re-inclusion. Way of Inquiry 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Begin quote

On Peirce and his contemporaries Ernst Schröder and Frege, Hilary Putnam (1982) wrote:

When I started to trace the later development of logic, the first thing I did was to look at Schröder's Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik. This book … has a third volume on the logic of relations (Algebra und Logik der Relative, 1895). [These] three volumes were the best-known logic text in the world among advanced students, and they can safely be taken to represent what any mathematician interested in the study of logic would have had to know, or at least become acquainted with in the 1890s.

While, to my knowledge, no one except Frege ever published a single paper in Frege's notation, many famous logicians adopted Peirce–Schröder notation, and famous results and systems were published in it. Löwenheim stated and proved the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem … in Peirce's notation. In fact, there is no reference in Löwenheim's paper to any logic other than Peirce's. To cite another example, Zermelo presented his axioms for set theory in Peirce–Schröder notation, and not, as one might have expected, in Russell–Whitehead notation.

One can sum up these simple facts (which anyone can quickly verify) as follows: Frege certainly discovered the quantifier first (four years before O. H. Mitchell did so, going by publication dates, which are all we have as far as I know). But Leif Ericson probably discovered America 'first' (forgive me for not counting the native Americans, who of course really discovered it 'first'). If the effective discoverer, from a European point of view, is Christopher Columbus, that is because he discovered it so that it stayed discovered (by Europeans, that is), so that the discovery became known (by Europeans). Frege did 'discover' the quantifier in the sense of having the rightful claim to priority; but Peirce and his students discovered it in the effective sense. The fact is that until Russell appreciated what he had done, Frege was relatively obscure, and it was Peirce who seems to have been known to the entire world logical community. How many of the people who think that 'Frege invented [formal] logic' are aware of these facts?

The main evidence for Putnam's claims is Peirce (1885), published in the premier American mathematical journal of the day. Peano, Ernst Schröder, among others, cited this article. Peirce was apparently ignorant of Frege's work, despite their rival achievements in logic, philosophy of language, and the foundations of mathematics.

End quote

Organizational mess

This article is an organizational mess ... and a good example of how Wikipedia fails (for Jon and Ben's benefit). The whole thing needs to be restructured I think to focus on the subject and not the theories of the subject. --Steven Zenith 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That'd be nice. I just wanted to write simple summaries defining the usual terms and relations for the general reader who would be encountering those terms and relations in any Peirce discussion. If every such summary is to be turned into a vast battleground over abstract theoretical emphases, the point is gone. Each section would need to be turned into its own article, and the general reader will find a series of links to long-winded articles written almost as if with the purpose of driving the general reader away. The Tetrast 17:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We have to take the man as he was, and justify his ways as best we can. The simple fact is that Peirce frequently defines his concepts in abstract theoretical terms that cover vast arrays of more concrete examples. If you can find examples that are fully generic, then that is a good thing, but not especially easy to do. Sir Humphrey Appleby 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, Peirce often defines his terms in ways addressed to general audiences and not always in fully abstract theoretical ways. Since it is not easy to find "examples that are fully generic," one should do as Peirce did and give the reader things to hang onto.The Tetrast 19:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing contrary about it -- please consult your square of opposition -- since these are in fact existential statements: (1) he frequently constructed abstract comprehenisve theories, (2) he frequently abstracted prescisive descriptions, and (3) he frequently indicated or invented concrete examples. The question is simply -- and I don't really mean "simply" of course -- what mix of strategies will work for such a diverse audience? I'm guessing it's like Scylla and Charybdis and the Wine Dark Straits that mediate them. Best to follow the Hippocratic Precept, and First Do No Harm. Way of Inquiry 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I might note here that some of these sections have already been turned into separate articles, which you can reach by following the Main Article links under some of the headings. Sir Humphrey Appleby 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing to remember here is that, as Aristotle pointed out, the order of being is opposite to the order of knowledge. The general reader needs to get a rough idea of the meanings of the most common terms and relations which he will encounter in a typical discussion of Peirce or by Peirce. A reference work can helpfully organize these terms and definitions in a way which reflects the theoretical rationales and discusses them at well chosen turns. Brevity in this is hard-won but valuable, and I'm still looking for ways to shorten the things that I've written. What's called for here is neither a dictionary of the terms nor a textbook of the theory, but brief summaries which get the usual initial confusions out of the way ("Is the interpretant the activity of interpretation or is it AN interpretation?" etc.), and which clearly identify in prominent places the chief terms and their often numerous synonyms or near-synonyms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Tetrast (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Come to think of it, I'd like to turn the Type of Signs section into a separate article, but I'm unsure what to call it -- the title should relate to Peirce but I'm unsure how. And should I say "classification" instead of "types"? "Types of signs (Peirce)"? "Classification of signs (Peirce)"? Is there some preferred way to refer to Peirce in the title other than parenthetically at the title's end? I have material to add to such an article, and also an idea of the summary which would take its place in the Peirce article and which would link to the Types of Signs artice.The Tetrast 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you check the See Also section at the end of the article, there are a number of different articles where an expanded treatment of Sign Types might fit, say Sign (semiotics). Slim Margin 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Falsification

I don't remember the reference now - but someone might want to find it and add that Karl Popper acknowledges that Peirce preceded him in the development of the notion of falsification. --Steven Zenith 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Determination

Moving the following paragraph to discussion for further work.

The object determines the sign to determine the interpretant to be related to the object as the sign is related to the object. Therefore this determines the interpretant as a sign to determine a still further interpretant, and semiosis ever continues.

The topic of multiple determination in Peirce will probably take a very careful treatment in its own right, as the casual reader will have a tendency to think of determination in the causal and dyadic terms of classical determinism, which we know would be misleading in the case of sign relations. Way of Inquiry 15:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I wrote. With boldface added here to Way of Inquiry's omission, I wrote,

The object determines (in Peirce's sense of "specializes", bestimmt) the sign to determine the interpretant to be related to the object as the sign is related to the object. Therefore this determines the interpretant as a sign to determine a still further interpretant, and semiosis ever continues.

That alerts the reader that "determination" is not being used in the usual contemporary sense. Somebody could elaborate on this without simply removing the passage and then misquoting it.

Now, I haven't checked who removed my "a.k.a." alternatives -- "interpretant, a.k.a. interpretant sign", "object, a.k.a. semiotic object," "sign, a.k.a. representamen" -- but I don't see the point of this. These are just the things to which a general reader needs to be alerted in an introductory text.

I also see no reason for the elimination of the ordinal numbers from the kinds of object, signs, objects, and interpretants, unless somebody just want to play down Peirce's categorialism in semiotics, but this would not be true to Peirce. The Wikipedia help section itself specifies HTML to use for multi-level numbering. It would be frivolous to remove the numbering for the sheer sake of using Wiki list formatting. The Tetrast 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the determination issue right now, but simply by way of casual observations on the style issues, there are some likely eventualities that we may anticipate happening in this setting.

The WP:MoS and local customs have a thing against abbreviations, so barbarisms like "a.k.a" will eventually get replaced, and succesive editors over time will eventually degrade complex html markup anyway, so it's best to keep that as simple as possible. If you really need numbers, maybe "#" and "##" will do instead of "*" and "**".

I realize that Peirce is full of complexities and subtleties, but if you overwhelm the reader with all of them at once — nested parenthetical remarks and the full variorum of his usage — some editor will eventually just delete it en bloc. I know this is not easy to keep under control, but one must continue to try. Sir Humphrey Appleby 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The numeration style needs to be specified and this is doable only with html. If somebody alters it, I will restore it. I'm not crazy about excessive parentheses either so I'll work on that. As for "a.k.a.," I'll replace it with "also called." As for overwhelming the reader with complexities, first of all the general reader needs to be not overwhelmed with abstract theoretical emphases which result in the most prominent terms going scattered and undefined. The Tetrast 18:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and fully sympathize. Let me emphasize that those are just my observations with regard to the sorts of things that I have seen happen hereabouts. Better to anticipate the effects than to suffer the consequences, I always say. Sir Humphrey Appleby 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The point about determination is that the explanation in place does not do the job that it needs to do. Maybe if one glosses the German term bestimmt (and can do that without a long parenthetical intrusion (oder eine Fußnote, u.s.w.)) then it might alert the reader that something distinctive is going on, but right now it merely detours the reader without providing the essential information, namely that we are concerned here with tri-relative determinations that cannot be accounted for in terms of the more familiar sorts of bi-relative determinations. Way of Inquiry 12:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jon Awbrey" problem

Since this page is the hangout of this man, I will leave my comment here. The sockpuppets of this banned user are getting even more out of control. Take a look at the history of edits to this article within the past month - all of them largely by the same person under different names. Please do not let the multiple names fool you.

Starting from February 1st, here's just a sampling of his sockpuppets: The Tetrast, Sir Humphrey Appleby, Brought Forth, Edvard Munchkin, Brought Forth, Love And Fellowship, Conceived In Liberty, Four Score And Seven Years Ago, Knight Of The Woeful Countenance, Way of Inquiry, Santiago Saint James, Our Fathers, Sir Humphrey Appleby, On This Continent, Slim Margin. FranksValli 02:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidence of banned User:Jon Awbrey using sockpuppets should be reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Note that the instructions say that the report should be made within one week of suspected edits. --Blainster 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Awbrey began editing this article on December 22, 2005, and has so thoroughly obfuscated it since then, I suggest we roll the article state back to that date and begin from there once the sockpuppets have been blocked. --Blainster 09:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Blainster, can you say why you think it's him? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that it was FranksValli who brought this to our attention. I looked at a number of the entries and they are very typical of Awbrey's style of writing. I hesitated to put a request at WP:SSP because that page says the edits should be within the past week. It would probably be best to do a checkuser to make sure the IP range matches, but you can see the similarity of names and they have all started editing since Awbrey's ban last September. I am less sure of "Love and Fellowship", and possibly "Sir Humphrey". --Blainster 10:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not order a check-user of these usernames listed above? There were so many of these over the past eight months that there was a category named "Category:Sockpuppets of banned user Jon Awbrey" or something to that effect (which may have since been deleted in a CfD). I believe there have been in excess of forty to date. User:KillerChihuahua is familiar with this set of events — perhaps you might want to consult with that admin as well. … Kenosis 14:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and blocked them. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost every editor who has edited this page since October 2006 has been a Jon Awbrey sock; I count at least a dozen. Jayjg (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe when someone is that persistent and is not actually trying to wreck the place, we need to make an effort to channel them into productivity. I recognise the difficulty inherent in doing that, particularly in Jon's case, but I don't see why we can't approach it with that aim. The alternative is endless whackamoling and stress for all concerned. Grace Note 03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Before you can take up any other issues, you need to deal with the fact that SlimVirgin improperly reverted and Kenosis improperly deleted the good faith edits of many editors who can have no possible relationship to the accused editor, many of which contributions are so long standing that they precede the editor-in-question's first edits on this article. In addition, those who have been watching the history of this article know that a very large number of these edits were specifically worked out in collaboration to address the problems that are expressed above on this discussion page. My suggestion is that you return the article to the Consensual and Collaborative condition that it was in before the recent false charges and improper actions, and that you re-acquaint yourself with such basics of chivalry and common sense scholarship as were once and hopefully future enscounced under the capitals of the Wikipedia Five Pillars. On that understanding, and only that, it may be possible to proceed to the next tourney on the list. Created Equal 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no foundation for further discussion until the editors and administrators who have acted improperly understand the fact that they have severely disrespected the efforts of many previous editors on this article, and until they reverse their erroneous actions. For me to accept the current state of the article is to acquiesce and condone that level of gross disrespect for other editors. And that I will not do. Created Equal 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the article to a manageable size

I am beginning to remove some of the excessively specific material from this article on the heels of this unfortunate set of events discussed above. I'm placing all significant chunks of removed material in Talk:Charles Peirce/Cache in the event some of it may be useful in a topic fork in the future. No doubt it took a great deal of work for Jon Awbrey to assemble, but the vast majority of it is either unsourced or based on primary sources by Peirce, and simply too much for the main article on Charles Peirce. Please feel free to adapt, undo, or partially re-use as appropriate. ... Kenosis 13:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

After transferring several subsections to Talk:Charles Peirce/Cache, I placed the rest of the current content in its entirety on that page, so that all current content can be found should it be necessary, without needing to parse through the article history. ... Kenosis 15:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Franks Valli Has Born False Witness

  • And Blainster has vandalized this discussion page based on that false witness. Created Equal 14:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Because anyone can edit and anyone can change IP numbers with a new service provider (many have a first month free come-on); Wikipedia necessarily bans personalities and not persons. If one has a personality identical to one banned for behavior caused by that personality, it does not matter if the person is the same or not. Jon was great in the article space but more trouble than he was worth in the talk space. If you fit that personality profile, please edit the articles but stick to non-Wikipedian talk spaces for talk. Your friend, WAS 4.250 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I want to analyze the implications of a ban on both an IP address and a personality profile. In general, the latter (banning a peronality profile) seems to involve difficulties in forming a stable enough operational definition to justify any action more assertive than saying "please let the consensus process take its course" ... Kenosis 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That said, it's fairly obvious User:Created Equal is Jon Awbrey or a magical co-conspirator of some sort. I removed the last edit by this "user" with the edit summary: Reverting attempted reinsertion of "technical" tripe by an obvious sockpuppet of banned User:Jon Awbrey. See WP:OWN ... Kenosis 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
If I'm wrong, have the lawyer file for a court-ordered check-user and sue me for saying "obvious" instead of "possible" or "alleged" sockpuppet. ... Kenosis 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
For all his faults, Jon is a human being, trying to add material to Wikipedia in good faith. I think you should bear that in mind. I'm reserving an opinion whether his vision of the article is better or worse than yours, but it's nothing like as clearcut as you seem to think. And WAS, I am quite surprised to see you describe someone as "more trouble than they're worth", particularly someone who wants to contribute content. Although, having said that, I advise Jon to ratchet himself down a few notches, and try to keep in mind that the powerless cannot make edits by force here, and trying to leads only to upset for both the adder and those who don't want the addition. In any case, it's the behaviour that is banned, not the person. If the person comes back, does not repeat the behaviour and sticks to the norms of the community, there is no problem with that, and to seek to exclude them or their material is simply vindictive and petty. Please treat Jon and his puppets with that in mind. Grace Note 03:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not a mental suicide pact, nor is it a requirement to submit to other editors' insistence on article ownership in violation of WP:NOR, which strongly discourages personal syntheses based on widely debated primary sources. And, inclusion in the class of entities known as human beings is not an automatic entitlement to violate the policies and practices of Wikipedia, participation in which is an entitlement arising from within the structure of WP, not an automatic right based on being a human being. Further, sockpuppetry, as it is known within WP, is a significant enough departure from good-faith participation in the WP:Consensus process to merit not only the exclusion to which Jon Awbrey has been officially subject, but also for the exclusion of Jon's participation under the guise of the many other "signs" which such a banned former-user may choose to use.
Either way, there has been no justification put forth on this talk page for the inclusion of the just-removed material, nor in the article in the form of citations from others' than the editor who wishes to throw this form of material in there as deisred. A review of the talk page will confirm that this is not the first time this issue has come up with respect to this article. In the end, the content of this article will depend on a consensus about how to reasonably present to the reader a summary of Charles Peirce, and not a paper about what one user surmises are the highly technical minutia that must be presented from all the voluminous books, papers, articles and notes of Charles Peirce. ... Kenosis 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF is not a mental suicide pact This is a non sequitur. Sorry but it is. Jon is not malicious. You might consider it a suicide pact to continue to accommodate Jon, but that doesn't speak to his good faith, which I consider unquestionable. I think you need to understand that his sense of ownership is born out of his knowledge of the subject area, which (I don't mean to insult you by saying it) lack. I think you should bear that in mind. As for the rest of your first paragraph, I simply do not appreciate your tone, and can't find anything in it that merits discussion. Try not to speak to me or anyone else like they're shit from now on. Continuing to do so is not going to win you many friends.
To your second paragraph. I think Jon has many times defended his edits. That's part of the problem! I want to remind you though that "consensus" does not necessarily imply that we simply round up a majority and it gets its way. You need to make the effort to convince all that you are in the right. Personally, I tend to agree with WAS that the additional material should not be omitted entirely, but could be placed in supplementary articles, and I'd be interested to see Jon's view on that. He is not going away, regardless how pompously you spout policies at him, or at others here, so let's try to work together, with him included, to achieve a solution that all can live with. Grace Note 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(<---) Grace Note, my phrase "more trouble than they're worth" was solely meant to objectively describe the subjective evaluation by members of the community when they decided on a community ban for Jon. He refused to stop acting in a way on talk pages that no one else found useful or productive and many found disruptive and incomprehensible. His edits on Wikipedia Review show that his method of communicating contains no malice but does contain a great deal of personality driven aspects that gets in the way of communicating for the purpose of achieving a consensus. He prefers to pun rather than to be clear. And the more upset he gets the less clear his communication, which is better than being incivil I guess but the people involved simply had all they could take and said enough! goodbye!. His edits to articles were always beyond reproach in all aspects except OWN. WAS 4.250 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he considers that he is being clear. Okay, so let's agree that he isn't. And it is frustrating for other editors to have to work through his chatter. Let's agree on that. But he isn't going away, is he? So can we agree that we need a framework in which we can find a resolution that all are happy with, including Jon? Grace Note 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Kenosis, please respect Jon as a recognized expert on the subject of this article and while he may be wrong about some things - especially about successfully communicating with others - we don't want to drive off expertise. We want to encourage contributions that we can use. A ban is no excuse to throw away useful work. If you don't understand something, that is no reason to delete it. Moving it to a specialist article can make sense. Maybe the stuff moved out of here can be placed in an article dedicated to this man's ideas. Maybe Jon can help with that. He was not banned due to behavior on articles. Do not revert good work done in article space. WAS 4.250 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion. I don't think the article should simply be filleted because it seems too difficult to Kenosis. Many articles -- particularly on technical subjects -- are difficult (I was reading about ergodicity today and I barely understood a word). The level of technical difficulty should probably not be too high in a biography, but the material that Jon is adding should not just be thrown away. Grace Note 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A competent encyclopedia article on a major logician, mathematician, natural scientist, and philosopher will scarcely limit itself to an overview of his or her biography. Indeed that is the least of it, and in some people's views of the matter almost incidental. The work's the thing that needs to be covered, and related to its time and ours. And Dedicated To 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have restored the edits that were improperly reverted by SlimVirgin based on the above false charges. And you're welcome. And Seven 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Kenosis, your notion of WikiPapal Infallibility is a dangerous and addictive habit to fall into. Three months worth of valid edits by The Tetrast and many others were improperly reverted by SlimVirgin based on false charges by FranksValli and Blainster. This was a mistake. It is best to admit it and correct it. Please do not compound it simply out WikiPerverse willfulness. And Seven 13:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Accessibility Questions

Jon, this article needs to be more clear to our average reader. The more complicated stuff needs to be in a different article. You must accept that the opinions of others have value even if you don't understand how that can be so. Is truth miscommunicated still truth? WAS 4.250 04:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with this. Jon, you need to get a grip on the idea that the article is aimed at a general readership, and Kenosis is probably representative of it. Can we look at trying to find a middle ground, in which the biography is kept relatively light (however unbearable that feels) and more in-depth material is abstracted out to more technical articles? Grace Note 06:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There has never been any dispute about the need to spin off separate articles when sections of this one grow too large. If you take the trouble to read the previous discussion, plus following up some of the {{main}} and See Also links, you will find:
  1. Jon Awbrey has been doing most of this work all along.
  2. Jon Awbrey has not written or even edited much of the Bio section, except to correct the most egregious errors and to try and supply a few references where a previous editor failed to give proper attributions for material "borrowed" from standard biographies.
  3. It was SlimVirgin's recent revert that re-introduced most or these defects back into the article.

Grace Note, a few comments about the possible road ahead, before we return to the enabling conditions of further progress.

  1. I know General Reader — General Reader is a friend of mine — and although Kenosis may be one general reader, he does not represent the interests of all readers who come to Wikipedia looking for information about a subject of interest to them. And Dedicated To 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. No one has ever disputed the desirability of making knowledge accessible to the general reader, by which I mean the widest possible audience. We have all discussed this many times before. From information available to me, 2007 marks the 40th year since Jon Awbrey began his dedicated study of Peirce's works, and nobody devotes that big a chunk of his or her life to a study without desiring to make the fruits of it as widely available as possible. A lot of that cannot be included here — you will find that students of Peirce are especially well-versed in the difference between original research and sourced research — and so it will not be included here. And Dedicated To 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Where people differ on the question of accessibility does not appear to be in its desirability as a goal, but on the best path to achieve it. There are many subjects currently included in Wikipedia that many readers will find they need a "leg up" on before they can comprehend them fully. It is of course not always necessary to comprehend a subject fully in order to benefit from reading about it, but it would be nice if the requisite "leg up" could also be found in Wikipedia. Obviously, this takes organization, planning, some trial and error, and just plain a lot of dedicated work to achieve. Some of us have been doing a whole lot of this work for years on end now. If drive-by, fly-by editors cannot respect that, then the overall quality of Wikipedia articles will fail to improve over time. And Dedicated To 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Obstacles To Collaboration

Jon, thank you very very much for all your hard word and dedication in helping to bring knowledge to the world in this free (libre) encyclopedia (Wikipedia Review does not get the free culture aspect at all). Please let the past stay in the past as far as regretable interactions with certain wikipedians. We all have our flaws and wikipedia does not do revenge or punishment as a rule (although individuals certainly do in spite of the rules, especially when they are the ones interpreting the rules). So let us move forward rather than create unneeded barriers. You are respected by those you are now interacting with here on this page and anyone who does not respect you should stay the heck away from this page. But even those who respect you may differ with you or even block or ban you if you appear to be hurting wikipedia rather than helping. You need to behave in a way that leaves no doubt that you are being helpful. Being insulting and demanding leaves doubts. Getting in revert wars leaves doubts. You have doubts about their being helpful, no doubt - but if your goal is to give the gift of free knowledge to the world, fighting that fight now is not a good strategy. First regain your standing in this community by showing you can play well with others. WAS 4.250 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Playing well with others is a two-way street, not that I'm saying to go play in the street. Since writing a high quality article is a lot of work, the word collaboration is slightly less misleading for what we should be trying to do here. Collaboration means working with others. Right at this moment, the biggest obstruction to genuine collaboration on this article is the fact that some Wikipedia Administrators and Wikipedia Editors have failed to respect the contributions of other editors in the way that Wikipedia Policies espouse. Until that obstruction is removed by the people who created it there can be no hope of true collaboration on this article. And Dedicated To 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

In the intro paragraph I changed "semeiotic" to "semiotics" to be consistent with the other use of the term in the same paragraph. I see there are separate entries on each term; however, "semeiotic" is defined as Peirce's own particular take on theory of signs. Therefore, I reason that his "contribution" is to semiotics generally, not just his own "semeiotic". Aldrichio 14:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the history here is complex. Peirce used both terms, in both singular and plural. For a long time it was conventional in the literature to use "semiotics" for Peirce's spin and "semiology" for Saussure's spin on things, but that got mushed over in popular writing during the last 20 years or so. Partly as a result of that, the Wikipedia article on semiotics has inherited a lot of that confusion, in its present state being very misleading as far as Peircean semiotics goes. Until that article can be sorted out, a reasonable stop-gap strategy in the meantime has been to use "semeiotic" for specifically Peircean stuff and "semiotics" for the general run. That distorts history a bit, but it will have to do for the moment. Created Equal 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Charles Peirce's particular theory of relations, why not simply start an article on Charles Peirce's theory of relations and place that material in such a location for now, with a link from the article on Charles Peirce? The material, originally submitted by Jon Awbrey under his own name, can be found fully intact at Talk:Charles Peirce/Cache... Kenosis 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Those of us who have been labouring here for the last year, going on two, will know that many related articles have already been spun off from the main Peirce article and that User:Jon Awbrey, now defunked, was early on encouraged by the local interest group to organize this effort. As reported in the archives somewhere, Jon Awbrey looked around Wikipedia for established models of related article complexes, and found that folks in Literature had some of the best arrangements. For example, see the complex of articles related to Chaucer and his works. It was also observed that articles with titles like "So-and-so's approach to such-and-such" were generally deprecated for using that form — I forget the exact cases, but a lot of them seemed to involve Ken Wilber, I think. So it was decided to follow the Chaucer rather than the Wilber model. Accordingly, there are sub-articles and stub-articles on many of Peirce's individual works, and many on topics that Peirce initiated, or brought to new life, but that have developed further in the years that came after him. If size matters, then 80 to 100 kb is not out of bounds for a figure of Peirce's stature. But simply deleting essential aspects of Peirce's work from respectable coverage in the main article is not an acceptable way to it cut it down. Created Equal 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Without reviewing the articles, I'm guessing that our articles on Einstein and his ideas might be a proper model for how to break up information on a man and his important, yet to the general public, difficult to understand efforts. WAS 4.250 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

  • For a moment there, I thought that Reason, Pure or OtherWise, had returned to Wikipedia. But it seems to come in lurches and bakwashes. On jugera, I guess. Sadly, the present state of Wikipedian censorship and gag-ordering does not permit me to discuss these matters further here. Those of you who still remember how to behave like scholars are invited to the Peirce Corner of our Public House at the Wikipedia Review. Created Equal 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If I must speak now for Jon Awbrey and Created Equal, and all the other silenced voices, then I will say that I truly appreciate the fact some editors are trying to live by The Old Wiki Code, even if it must now be my Memory Of The Spirit, far more than the Fickleness Of Its Letter, that I hold in my heart. Edios. I stop somewhere waiting for you … All Men Are 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you people completely lost all sense of how normal people view your actions, that give the lie to all your espoused ideals of openness and transparency? The Proposition That 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I count this as three more sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey, right here in this section alone. The refusal of Jon Awbrey, under the auspices of his many sockpuppets, to accept that well-researched material and personal commentary on that material (in this case Peirce's voluminous and often oblique writings) can legitimately be subject to editorial discretion of others is simply beyond me. I mean, what is this? playing the role of Don Quixote with a multiple personality disorder or something? Some of us, including Jon, watched some unfortunate sockpuppeting happen before on this and another talk page involving another WP user, and I should think one would avoid this kind of approach based on that experience, rather than replicate it ad absurdum. Unfortunately I'm also reminded of the fellow who worked for three years on his doctoral thesis, didn't like the doctoral advisor's recommendations for the material he presented and demanded peer review of the situation. Then after getting knocked down in peer review, rumor has it that he then went to a bunch of publishers with the material and came up empty, then went and bought an old luger — that was a couple years ago, and we still wonder every now and again whether he'll make the headlines and what the headline will read. What I mean to say here is — sometimes things get a bit ridiculous after awhile, and it'd be very preferable in general to see some other course taken than the present one. Do have a nice week, and stay in touch, OK?. ... Kenosis 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Collaboration is possible only on the basis of respect — respect for each other, respect for all of the ideals that we espouse, respect for those that came before us, and respect for the subject of the article. When that basis is in place, then people can begin to collaborate on producing a high quality article about the subject in question, but not before. The Proposition That 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Jon, you have established that you have a consensus with yourself. Quite the puppet play. But all your characters sound alike. I read the same critisism of Isacc Asimov's characters. I think at least one should be Spanish. Si? 4.250.168.36 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you 4.250.168.36. A Spanish speaking puppet that takes up where Jon left off would be like totally transparent, ya know? So, like, I suggest a French speaking puppet that takes up where Jon left off. Like, cuz that'd totally work. Ya, know? Oui? WAS 4.250 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You are both wrong. Taking up where Jon left off is the give-away. You need three or so socks that care about this article and want to improve it in mildly differing ways. Let them argue with each other but agree in the end and thus improve this article. 5.250.168.36 19:70, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No that won't work. They'd see right through that. You have to have socks that oppose what Jon was trying to do and in the end claim to make the article better but actually make it worse according to the standards and criteria that Jon was using to make it better. Has Vietnam taught you guys nothing? Sometimes you have to destroy something to save it.6.250.168.36 19:80, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference: of the eight users in this section so far, only two are distinct people: Kenosis and Jon Awbrey (under 7 different aliases). FranksValli 02:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FranksValli, I know that you did not intend it, but you have made a serious error in your original charge. As a result, the good faith contributions of many editors over a 3 month period were reverted by SlimVirgin. I am trying to save all of you the shame of finding this out later rather than sooner, but many of you have so far remained recalcitrant to receiving the information. And Dedicated To 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets, you are wrong. 32kB is the recommended length for the entire article. We just removed, and the sockpuppets keep replacing, 32kB worth of excess highly technical material that if anything should be published with a free host, and at most a link from this article. Even without this material the article's still roughly double the recommended length. Note that WP recommendations, such as for article length, can be altered by consensus of WP users and NOT by a fabricated "consensus" of sockpuppets. And that's not the only issue with this article, though it's one of the more conspicuous ones ... Kenosis 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Kenosis, You know perfectly well, at least, I think you do, that 32 kb is an obsolete limit based on the page edit specs that some browsers had almost 10 years ago. There are tons and tons of Wikipedia articles that exceed that size, as befits their subjects. Everybody is trying to write as succinctly as possible, and Peirce was especially noted for doing so, but that does not always make for ease of comprehension. So let us put aside these red herrings and address the real issues. And Dedicated To 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Peircing

I think you're too harsh in your attempts to reconcile the Charles Peirce article. More flies with honey, you know. If you take a look at Benkler's breakdown of commons-based peer-production, you'll see that social capital is extremely important, and your unwillingness to invest it (Through your decisions to label certain activities as vandalism even knowing that it would bother other users and your strident tone in supporting your changes — which often include good information) is not an idealistic stand. Wikipedia is no different than any other commons-based peer project, and requires of its volunteers a volunteer ethic. More often than not, if you calm down, extend the olive branch and be the bigger person, it is not actually a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. Elijahmeeks 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elijahmeeks, I appreciate the spirit of your remarks, but there are many aspects of the current situation and its history of which I am guessing you are unaware. A number of false accusations have been made. From the information available to me I know that they are false, but some of the actors in this drama are unwilling to consider even the possibility that they may be wrong. In the meantime, acts have been taken on the basis of these charges: (1) acts that are destructive to the article, in ways that violate foundational principles of Wikipedia, The Five Pillars, just for starters, and (2) acts that grossly disrespect the contributions of many, many previous editors. Until those errors are reversed, there can be no hope of truly collaborative work. The Proposition That 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me it's gone beyond arguing the merits of what happens to your edits or anyone else's. You were banned. Therefore, what you're doing now is being an outlaw. You need to quit messing with the article. It's highly disruptive. Time to move on. Aldrichio 18:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a different view of history. Let me explain through example: I'm a big Jefferson fan — which means I hate Hamiltonians — I mean, I loathe Hamiltonians. But I acknowledge that their contribution to the creation of the United States was valuable and important. Even when it was destructive to knowledge and freedom. These models of commons-based development are extremely resilient, production (And not contribution)-centric and, most importantly, demonstrate a marked ability to leave the hands of those who don't respect the model (Either through forking or dissipation). The cultivation of civility and empathy to the point of submission is itself Strength and not weakness. Well, I feel like I've gone a little too touchy-feelie … hopefully it hasn't done damage to the point I was trying to make. Elijahmeeks 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything I know I learned in grade school, and mucking through the old archives on the whole Awbrey mess. But I find that my lack of knowing the precedents is often a strength, as I've got no axe to grind. I've read your contributions and they seem to be lucid and I've read the complaints of others and they seem to be lucid, as well. It's like that old, sad song: There ain't no good guys and there ain't no bad guys. I'm not particularly Wikipedia-community minded but, in this case, I figured I'd throw in my pair of pesetas. Elijahmeeks 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nobody here but us humans — 'cept for the bots — there will be a Turing Test at mid-semester, but in the meantime we will simply have to WP:AH (Assume Humanity ⇒ Ergo Error). So I don't know if making a mistake makes anyboty a BadGuy/Gal/Bot. But the mistake only gets compounded if one cannot accept and correct it. FYI, there are at least 3 independent Peirce scholars/students active on the Peirce article at present, with more than 60 years of cumulative experience reading and discussing Peirce's work. It's a crying shame that they have to waste time redoing the good work that they have already done and fighting these procedural battles instead of working to improve the article. The Proposition That 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at this in a more dispassionate, more dialectic manner. Instead of "redoing good work" and "wasting time", why not think of it as "continuing to take part in dynamic knowledge creation". This doesn't need to be so adversarial and it would likely win you some friends, who would support your edits and allow you to do good work. This sounds like selling out, but it's not, it's acknowledging the value of community and community currency. We're all in this together … aw, nuts, I'm going all hippie again. Elijahmeeks 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Elijahmeeks, Those are fine-sounding sentiments, but they are spoken in the absence of an acquaintance with the realities of the present situation. False charges were made. As a result, 3 months of good faith edits were reverted without a glance. That is not what I would call "dynamic knowledge creation". It is blind irrational destruction. It also violates the wisdom that is contained in basic elements of Wikipedia culture and policy like WP:5P and WP:EP which advise us to avoid wholesale deletion in favor of gradual improvement. And Dedicated To 04:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a human being, so far as I'm aware, and I'm generally against content destruction. I'd like people to stop reverting Jon's edits blind. It's not achieving any good purpose. And Jon, in return, I'd like you to start discussing a framework for the article, or articles, that can work for all. You are not going to be able to maintain a dense, difficult article for Peirce's biography. I recognise that density equals accuracy in a sense, but the general reader cannot easily handle difficulty all that well. If we could abstract some of the more detailed material to subarticles, so that it remains available to the interested reader, and leave the biography as something that the more general reader can easily come to grips with, it might not be wholly satisfying for you, but it will be a step towards resolving the conflict. Grace Note 06:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grace Note. WAS 4.250 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Grace Note and WAS 4.250, Thanks, I know you both mean well, and I know I should probably wait an hour before swimming into these waters, but please do not lecture the Peirce scholars and students already assembled here in that tone of voice to "start discussing a framework for the article", as none of us has ever had the slightest difficulty, among ourselves, about talking first and shooting later. And Dedicated To 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ohhh … Well aren't we sensitive. WAS 4.250 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, A Bit Tetchy. But Whomans are like that, yeah they are. And I know as much as And Dedicated To must have truly e-joyed chatting with you Nice Cops while the Mean Cops snuck around behind his-her back with gag and handcuffs, I think that you can probably understand how a thing like that might make a dude or dudess just a tiny bit Edgy and Jumpy, if not utterly Itchy and Scratchy. Zelda Zilwaukee 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're at the point where Wikipedia needs to note the difference between vandalism and public protest. It would seem like the case here is not vandalism, or really anything so malicious, but rather a form of activism. I don't support it, but it should be addressed in the proper manner. Elijahmeeks 20:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for understanding. I know not what course others may take, but I do not do vandalism. That is because I recognize a responsibility to my most incidental reader that transcends all other considerations. If Wikipedia Administrators would only recognize these same responsibilities, they would quit dreaming that they can wish the world away, and they would stop obstructing reporters and scholars who have long been carrying the burden of these responsibilities. Zelda Zilwaukee 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sympathetic, of course. But it is apparent that the size and accuracy of the Charles Peirce article on Wikipedia is not what's important here. I studied philosophy in my undergrad, and I had no idea who Peirce was until a year ago. So we can't argue that the Charles Peirce article is fundamental to society at large (Unlike, say, Terrorism, Abortion, States' Rights or some other contentious socio-political battle that is rooted in definition). That's why, I feel, it makes for a good place to discuss Wikipedia Activism. As much as we'd like to cordon of what Wikipedia is not, the definition of the role and importance of Wikipedia is itself a collaborative effort between the community here and society at large (In the form of media and activists). Wikipedia has grown so important that these arguments are no longer arguments between amateur encyclopedists and are now public discourse between concerned citizens. Elijahmeeks 20:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has an education charter and it sounds to me as if you intend to be Jon-on-Wheels in order to either give Wikipedia an education or to receive one. Somehow I doubt this article will be improved in the process. And I know that I do not care to play a part in your proposed process of mutual education though "activism". So with fond hopes dashed, I bid you a sad farewell. WAS 4.250 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Size Matters ???

I still think this is probably a red herring, or maybe just a guy thing, but I went ahead and tabulated a sample of current data on article size for major philosopher-scientists. And Dedicated To 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle 47 kb
Plato 72 kb
Leibniz 81 kb
Kant 74 kb
Peirce check today's menu
Russell 79 kb
Wittgenstein 62 kb

I think 64 kb (plus or minus 20 kb) is a good size to shoot for. WAS 4.250 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, these are incidental issues. One can keep them in mind, but they do not drive the work. Normal practice in writing any kind of article for publication dictates writing for accuracy and coverage of the essential topics on the first several passes, then turning to considerations of "space" on the final tune-ups. Simply deleting a whole section that you did not feel like reading may be a solution for the drive-by editor who wants to exercise a will to power, but it is not a solution for those who genuinely care about the quality of the article and the subject covered in it. And Dedicated To 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true. It is also true that working environments without the clever little digs are more fun to work in than ones with. And since we are a volunteer effort, it helps not to drive people away with an unpleasant atmosphere. I guess being sensitve towards the feelings of others is more useful than being sensitive towards slights to oneself. Oh well. That really is too much to ask, I suppose. We can't very well have a saints only policy, can we? WAS 4.250 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Nuff said, I think. We all understand the capacity limitations on human attention that have nothing to do with the number of trees pulped to display a web-article. On the other hand, there is no required reading list on Wikipedia. I have never once noticed the kilo-bytage of any article that I have surfed past and dipped into on my own — and I can't really remember reading the whole of any article on the first few scans. And Dedicated To 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection Request

I don't have any experience with this, but I'm going to request that the article be given protected status. As I understand it, protected articles can only be edited by administrators, and semiprotected articles can only be edited by users who have been registered for at least four days. I'm guessing that Mr. Awbrey has an inventory of these "sock-puppet" user names, and thus would not necessarily be affected by semi-protection. So I will request full protection.

This war of reversions is totally ridiculous and makes Wikipedia into a laughing stock for anybody actually trying to do research on Peirce. It seems to me that most users would rather leave the article completely untouched for as long as it takes to resolve this, than to have the article undergoing a radical change in appearance every 12 hours.Aldrichio 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the banned user in question has been indef blocked. I have hence unprotected this article. Let me know if there are further problems. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is it edit-protected again? Did a sock puppet reappear? DCDuring 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been copied to Opencycle

See http://www.opencycle.net/wiki/Talk%3ACharles_Peirce. WAS 4.250 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Donated Books

Books on Logic that belonged to Peirce were sold or donated by his widow. They are in the library at Harvard and can be downloaded at http://www.books.google.com/ Lestrade 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Mathematics

I have not had a chance to read through the whole of Peirce's article and the discussions, and the Archives — so it may be that some of these issues have already been brought up. Anyhow, as a Mathematician/Scientist (mathematical scientist, actually), I have some commonsensical questions in regards to Peirce's article :

  1. Why is there no criticism of his work or of him? I do not believe that, given the length of the article, there is a single criticism of him. Are fellow wikipedians to believe that he was (assuming the date of death to be correct) perfect?
  2. In the section concerning his contributions to mathematics, there is a distinct lack of mathematical symbolism. This, in and of itself, is not a problem — but it does point to the very likely fact that he practiced mathematics that is very much different and at odds with the mathematical work of current modern day mathematicians. In the section concerning Logical graphs, there is also a lack of symbolism. Of course, this is all dependent upon how one defines mathematics. However, it does seem surprising that Peirce did not have a chance to outline how his work might be equivalent to any mathematical languages that mathematicians take for granted nowadays (such as ZFC, and other commonly studied, read and acknowledge mathematical formalisms).
  3. How many mathematical syllabuses nationally and internationally contain Pierce's work within their itinerary? How many syllabuses set questions on Pierce's logical graphs on their exam papers? I cannot imagine many. ConcernedScientist 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear ConcernedScientist, I share many of the concerns that you have expressed above. In order to understand the current state of any wikitext, whether in Wikipedia or Elsewhere, one has to understand a couple of factors : (α) the features that are peculiar to the specific wiki environment and (β) the full contribution history of the text in question. In the case of the English Wikipedia article on Charles Sanders Peirce : (α) many of the defects that you mention are due to philosophical and populational peculiarities of the English Wikipedia environment and (β) many more are due to the rather troubled history of this particular article. As often happens, these two factors have conspired to block any easy remedy of the rather obvious defects you mention. I will fill in some details of the case as I get time. Voice Of Xperience 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Goudge

{{editprotected}} Minor edit, please. In 'Reception', could an admin link the mention of Thomas Goudge to the new article T.A. Goudge, please? Thanks! Homagetocatalonia 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Logic portal link

{{editprotected}} Perhaps when the controversy dies down I (or someone else) could place this link to the logic portal?

Logic Portal

(Forget about that other template I guess.)

Gregbard 04:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Boolean algebra is now a disambiguation page

As soon as this page is unprotected, someone should disambiguate the link to "Boolean algebra" to Boolean algebra (logic), which is the correct target here. --Trovatore 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. In future using {{editprotected}} would help draw attention to such requests. —David Eppstein 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Purse"

Please change to IPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekrorider (talk • contribs)

{{editprotected}}

N Declined. Please be clearer about what edit you propose. Sandstein 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Add a disambiguation header

Could someone add a header like {{distinguish|Charles Pierce}} to make

Not to be confused with Charles Pierce.

Charles Pierce has a similar line that points to this page. Lisatwo 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Lisatwo 03:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A persistent problem

A fundamental problem continues to haunt this entry and its Talk Page: too much of it reflects the highly idiosyncratic point of view of a certain Jon Awbrey, who is not a Peirce scholar and whose views bear little resemblance to the Peirce scholarship found in university libraries. I applaud any action taken by Wikipedia management to limit the influence Awbrey has on this and related entries.

Thanks to Brent's biography, the facts of Peirce's life are reasonably well established. However, the sheer mass and range of Peirce's writings remains daunting as ever. Sorting out what Peirce thought remains up in the air, if only because the Collected Papers are misleading in some important respects, and the IUP chronological edition is complete only through 1890. After more than 30 years of work, only 6 of a planned 31 volumes of that edition have appeared, none since 2000. Secondary studies, such as Goudge 1950 and Murphey 1961, that were landmarks in their day are now obsolescent. Since then, our understanding of related figures such as Royce, C I Lewis, Dewey, and C K Ogden has advanced considerably. Hence the whole subject of Peirce's "influence" has to be revisited.

As for Peirce and Leibniz, Max Fisch wrote an entire essay (republished in Fisch 1986) on the relation between the two, quoting Peirce who was well aware of the parallels. Hence a mention of these parallels in this entry, citing Fisch, is not out of place. Some mention of Frege is also in order because Peircians complain, with justice I maintain, that Frege has hogged much of the intellectual limelight that is rightly Peirce's. Frege leads to analytic philosophy and the tortured mathematics of PM; Peirce points us towards Boolean algebra, and set and model theory.132.181.160.42 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Repair three links

The following links under "References" on the main page need to be corrected as shown just below, because of the move of the Arisbe website from members.door.net to the cspeirce.com domain. (The links are already correct on the Peirce bibliography page(s) Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography and Charles Sanders Peirce (Bibliography).)

Links (under "References") with the corrected URLs:

Anellis, I.H. (1995) "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced: How Charles Peirce and Bertrand Russell Viewed Each Other's Work in Logic, and an Assessment of Russell's Accuracy and Role in the Historiography of Logic," Modern Logic 5: 270–328.

Houser, Nathan (1989) "The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers," Fourth Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Perpignan, France, 1989. Published, pp. 1259–1268 in Signs of Humanity, vol. 3, Michel Balat and Janice Deledalle-Rhodes (eds.), Gérard Deledalle (gen. ed.), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 1992.

Peirce, C.S., "Application of C.S. Peirce to the Executive Committee of the Carnegie Institution, July 15, 1902." Published in Eisele, Carolyn, ed. (1976) "Parts of Carnegie Application (L75)" in The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, Vol. 4, Mathematical Philosophy. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton Publishers: 13–73.

The Tetrast 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"editprotected" label fixed The Tetrast 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"editprotected" label fixed and I hope I got it right this time. The Tetrast 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the links, as I show them just above, contain the corrected URLs, somebody just needs to paste into place in the article. The Tetrast 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody, perhaps you, already corrected those links, but the corrections were lost in this instance of massive vandalism committed by administrator SlimVirgin when she reverted 3 months of worth of edits on the article. Graysnots 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the references are fixed now, but I will double check. Name Sleightly Anonymized 20:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
They are fixed now. The use of "Eprint" and "PDF" labels at the end of the citation is done to maintain a distinction between the printed and the online versions, to warn of PDF files, and to avoid that little arrow from breaking into the middle of lines. 12.75.42.63 20:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I didn't know anything was going on with the "Eprint" and "PDF" labels, I though I was just replacing the URLs and leaving everything else the same. But I was wondering what was going on visually with the arrow thingy. I'll be alert to the issue next time. Thanks again. The Tetrast 02:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the protection on the article. If problems persist from a particular editor, let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Un-Protection Request

Why is it edit-protected again? Did a sock puppet reappear? DCDuring 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article should be unprotected now. Does anyone know the procedure for requesting that? There has never been any dispute that cannot be worked out in the usual way among the editors who care about the article and are familiar with its subject matter. Voice Of Xperience 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Archiving Some of Talk Page

Some of the discussion has been rendered obsolete by subsequent changes. I would have to leave it to veterans to decide what of the older discussions still has a bearing and should not be archived. DCDuring 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive Issue

I was trying to figure out how to make another Archive page, but when I did I discovered that somebody had already made an Archive_2 for Jan 2006 to Jun 2006, only somehow the link to it got omitted, so I will look at that and see if it's okay, then delete the corresponding sections here. Moses Nebogipfel 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. Thank you. DCDuring 04:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)