On Sep 26, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Burke Johnson wrote:
Did Peirce ever give his own working definition of the word
knowledge?
I know that Peirce thought that our knowledge is fallible,
truth is
something we only approach in the long run, that scientific knowledge
has a social nature, etc.,
Gary, Joe, et al.
With circularity, I think you'll have to consider, what Peirce wrote of taking up the same premisses again and again in cyclical systems, e.g. cyclical algebra. That is not circulum vitiosum. The same premisses take on new meanings, with a new context, that's how I've
Coming out of hibernation this is one hell of an interesting thread,
but I've not had time to put in my contribution because my time is consumed
with various projects. So I'll put in my 0.02 cents worth now.
What more compelling factor in fixation of belief is there than the
mind-body
Title: [peirce-l] Re: What fundamenal psychological
laws is Pei
Kristi,
Yes indeed, I'm thinking of growth logically. This is why I don't
think (at least am not convinced by any argument I've seen) that there
is much to be gained by looking at the order of different methods of
fixation chiefly
Joe, Kirsti, list,
[[ Well, Gary, it looks like some fancy footwork with the term is
rooted in might have to be resorted to if we are to save Peirce on this
one! You've caught him with a flat contradiction there! ]]
Personally i think the contradiction is more apparent than flat. As i
said (and
Gary, Joe, Kirsti, list,
Personally i think the contradiction is more apparent than flat. As i
said (and i think Kirsti said the same), this is not circulum vitiosum
but a pattern which underlies inquiry and therefore can only be itself
investigated via a cyclical process.
I have to agree.
Kirsti Mtt��nen kirstima at saunalahti.fi writes:
Dear Eugene,
Thanks for an inspiring mail. The idea of a progressively broadening
social conception I find a very fruitful one, enriching the idea of a
logical ordering. This, together with your exhilarating
thought-experiment with
