Clark - doesn't the question then become - how are habits or laws formed? I
wonder if 'abduction, induction, deduction' are the answer. We, who analyze and
verbalize the laws, may indeed prove them as laws by induction. But how is the
habit itself, which we see and define as a law - how is that formed within the
physico-chemical, biological..and even, the societal world?
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce List
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Constructor Theory
On Aug 12, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Ben - I agree. From a quick reading, constructor theory isn't offering a
new analytic frame, for the notion of general laws (Thirdness) operating as
causal of individual instances (Secondness) - is basic Peircean analysis.
Furthermore, the notion of the evolutionary capacity of these general laws -
i.e., to evolve/change as laws, is also basic Peirce.
Edwina, aren’t most laws developed more or less inductively? The initial
appeal to best explanation might be adductive but it seems the generals are
largely arrived at inductively. (This may not be true in more social sciences -
but then constructor theory seems most applicable in the hard sciences)
Now certainly the conclusions are the same (claims about generals or
thirdness). It’s also true that evolving laws are hardly new. Physics has
accepted them for much of the 20th century in cosmology and of course evolution
was broadly accepted early in Peirce’s career. I think Peirce’s taking this as
extremely broad and applying to basic systems was fairly novel for the 19th
century. In that constructor theory pushes that way of thinking in terms of
what is fixed (habitual) within systems versus what is more open one might
discount it as something Peirce already did by the 1870’s. However in terms of
formalized thinking in physics and chemistry, it does seem this is important.
Perhaps it is because these ways of thinking are old hat to us Peirceans that
we miss how transformative they *might* be within science broadly practiced. To
put simply, a lot of the basic ideas of Peirce are quite alien within science.
It would be nice to see that shift. But such a shift requires practical
benefits in terms of how scientists conduct their daily activities. Whether
constructor theory fits that I can’t say for sure. As I said I have only
superficial knowledge of it. However to my admittedly naive eyes, it seems like
a potentially favorable shift towards a more Peircean direction of thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
