Jeff, List: You have raised some key questions that I expected to come up here eventually. After formulating an abductive hypothesis that purports to explain a surprising fact, and then explicating its deductive implications, the next step in a *scientific *inquiry (according to Peirce) is subjecting it to inductive testing. However, is that genuinely feasible--even in principle--for *metaphysical *hypotheses such as Peirce's objective idealism and blackboard diagram, or my semiosic ontology and cosmology that are further developments of them? If so, then how might we go about it? Or are they effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore irremediably *unscientific*?
Gary R. seems to be convinced that the answers to the first and last questions are no and yes, respectively, but I get the sense that you think otherwise and am curious whether others have opinions either way. I will reply to his post separately, addressing his specific questions about my specific hypothesis. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 4:23 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Gary R, List, > > Thank you for sharing this interpretation of the Blackboard analogy. I > wanted to ask about one assertion: "Sure, this is all conjectural -- there > is certainly no scientific means to explore it." > > Are you suggesting that: > (1) at the present time, there doesn't appear to be any scientific means > to explore or test Peirce's cosmological conjectures about the evolution of > order, including the spatial and temporal ordering of things in the very > early universe; > or > (2) at the present time, we can't conceive of any possible tests, but we > might be in a better position to come up with some in the future; > or > (3) there are no such tests, as a matter of principle, that can be > conducted to confirm one hypothesis and disconfirm another perhaps because > we are talking about a "time before time". > > For my part, I think we'll be in a better position to explore and put > scientific hypotheses to the test if we can make them more exact--and the > blackboard analogy is part of an argument is designed to do just that. As > such, I think Peirce is trying to show us a path to follow in our > scientific inquiries to address the concerns you are raising > > --Jeff >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
