List, Clark: On Nov 2, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
> >> On Nov 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> 1. the nature of the chemical bond was highly controversial and no clear >> general propositions were available. >> The iconic representation of chemical bonds was NOT yet standardized. >> Multiple icons were used to represent the same physical identity. Problems >> with the plethora of isomers with the SAME molecular formula. >> >> 2. the lack of clarity between "radicals" and bonded structures in which all >> of the parts are welded/fused into a whole with an exact representation of >> the adjacency relations. >> >> 3. the same sorts of problems, no general methods for making a string (or >> set) of chemical propositions that different laboratories could agree upon. >> >> In CSP's day, 1,2,and 3 restricted the number of known structures to a few >> thousand. >> Today, CAS has a registry of about 20,000,000 unique identities of >> molecules, some containing millions of atoms. > > That’s fascinating. I did not realize that chemistry at the time of Peirce > was still so fragmentary. I thought that even prior to the rise of quantum > theory that such things were worked out. Since I’m largely ignorant of this > aspect of chemical history, I wonder if the distinction between covalent and > ionic bonds was well understood. The analogy Peirce makes with rhemes always > struck me as a very good one. However I wonder if you could perhaps comment > on whether the understanding of the era affects our understanding of the > analogy. > > (Apologies if this was discussed earlier - I’m behind) > > The way I took it was that the rheme - dicisign - argument distinctions > paralleled atoms with covalent sharing - molecules - chemical reactions > > I assume that chemistry was the iconic way Peirce conceived of signs and so > while a kind of analogy one should be careful. It seems from the few recent > posts I’ve read that you think it might be stronger if we understand > chemistry of the era. Could you expand on this at all? I confess I find this > quite intriguing. A few comments, rather crudely stated in an effort to communicate: WRT the difference between ionic and covalent bonds, neither was understood at the atomic level, merely that "electricity" was somehow or other involved. Of course, electricity itself was just as mysterious as chemistry during much of CSP's lifetime. The methodology and equipment were only suited for simple wet chemistry. Think about it from the history of physics perspective. JJ Thompson postulated the existence of an electron in 1899? And E. Rutherford the nucleus in 1911. CSP himself still believed in the Boscovitch theory on "interpenetration" of atoms in molecules into the 1890s. It is impossible to imagine electron transfer or electron sharing (that is, ionic or covalent bonding) if one does not have a concept of an electron! CSP had a couple of partial manuscripts in the 1870's that started out with the stated intention of describing the analytical separation schemes for salts of different metals. These notes were important to my understanding of CSP's mental development because they showed he was attempting to combine mathematics, logic and chemistry, even though his life was going a different direction by then. In the 1880's he was astounded by the observations of handedness (which was discovered roughly) at the end of the 1870's decade. Another critical observation, I believe, is CSP's motivations for developing his thoughts on semiosis. Theoretical chemistry is a completely semiotic science in the sense that neither atoms or molecules are visible objects, yet the signs generated by chemical experiments dance around like drunken sailors. Why? How? Can you explain the dramatic changes observed in chemical experiments such as going from a gas to a solid or the color changes of a titration by the laws of physics? Or theorems of mathematics? What motivated CSP to generate his intellectual wonderings? With respect to the triadic triad, I have noted in earlier posts that the correspondence between the terminology of modern chemistry and these nine terms had been clarified. Since then, I have followed CSP's oft repeated advice and played with the diagrams of relations among these nine terms. Particularly, wrt how/why he felt it necessary to introduce FIVE new terms. Do you think these terms were necessary for logic? For physics? For mathematics? Or what? What was going on in his scientific mind? One can only speculate about the nature of human thought in the second half of 19 th Century. But, I can say that these nine terms correspond with the challenges of proof of structure as it existed at that time. The critical concept is that one needs three separate and distinct indices determine a molecular structure. We call the indices molecular weight, molecular formula and the valences assigned to each atom. From these indices and experimental evidence, one can postulate an icon for each particular sinsign. Today, this icon is not described in terms of radicals, rather it is the term "molecular structure" (such as DNA). >From a mathematical/graph theory perspective, how many natural propositions >are need to form a connected electrical graph for n atoms? Some open questions to ponder: Does electrical phenomenology describe brain function in parallel with philosophical phenomenology? Is this really a question? How does physical concept of electricity relate to neuro-transmission of electrical particles and synaptic firing of electrical impulses? Eqn's? In closing, I was surprised by your suggestion of a relation between rhemes - decisigns and chemical reaction as the argument. Was this suggested by CSP? Very tiring day, hope this gives you some of the information you were seeking. If not, reformulate and try again! Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
