Dear Stan - Good luck! I am a fallibilist - if you make some convicing findings, I might change my views - Best F
Den 07/09/2014 kl. 15.44 skrev Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> : Frederick -- replying to: So ,to me, the decisive argument against pan- or physiosemiotics is that I have never seen any semiotic redescription of physical processes (like: the crater is an index of the meteor) adding the tiniest bit to our knowledge of physics. In that sense, such description seems superfluous. Quite the contrary is the case in biology where semiotic concepts abound. Best F In today's attitudes in science as contextualized by sciences current social role, this is indeed a cogent criticism of pansemiotics. However, some of us are trying get beyond todays physicochemical attitudes by 'probing the possibilities' in order to expand our conceptual world. We are hopeful that semiotics might make a road forward in this endeavor. STAN
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
