Perhaps saying that it is an index does add one thing. It says that instead of knowing that the crater was caused by a meteor through direct perception of the event, we know it because we inferred it based on what was left behind.
Mara Woods On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> wrote: > because it does not add anything to saying "the crater is caused by the > meteor" > F > > Den 07/09/2014 kl. 21.45 skrev "Deely, John N." <jnde...@stthom.edu>: > > How is “the crater is an index of the meteor” superfluous for > understanding the crater? > > *From:* Frederik Stjernfelt [mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:47 > *To:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Peirce List > *Subject:* [biosemiotics:6685] Re: Natural Propositions: > > Dear Stan - > Good luck! I am a fallibilist - if you make some convicing findings, I > might change my views - > Best > F > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
