Dear Folks,
Part of what I'm trying to say is that its not as
though the scientific method were an entirely independent alternative to the
other three methods. On the contrary the scientific method is built upon
and incorporates the other three methods. The lst three are not
discredited methods they are the building blocks of the scienfic method.
What gives sciences its power is that in combining the three methods (plus the
emphasis upon observation -- which can or can not be part of the method of
tenacity) it gives a more reliable basis for belief than any of the other
three methods alone.
But as for one and two -- yes I'd say they
are the basis of the whole structure. Tenacity and authority can both
include reason and observation. So if we include reason and observation in
the lst two then we have all the elements of the scientific method.
---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com |
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psychological la... Eugene Halton
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psychologic... Kirsti Määttänen
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psychol... Eugene Halton
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psychol... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psychol... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental psy... Joseph Ransdell
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamental... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fundam... Bill Bailey
- [peirce-l] Re: What "fu... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What &quo... Bill Bailey
- [peirce-l] Re: What &quo... Jim Piat
- [peirce-l] Re: What &quo... gnusystems
- [peirce-l] Re: What &quo... Bill Bailey
- [peirce-l] Re: What &quo... Gary Richmond
- [peirce-l] Re: What &quo... Bill Bailey