On 10/6/15 10:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Science, on the other hand depends on objective reality as its
reference base - and therefore, cannot depend on encultured opinion.
Galileo was quite clear on that. That is, you can have a _belief_ that
witches cause the plague but this is not science since there is no
objective empirical evidence.
I think you're example here shows that you're conflating surface beliefs
of individuals with deep-seated believes, i.e., beliefs that are so deep
seated that the all people of many contiguous eras don't question them.
I see how you'd come to your conclusion when plugging the ideas I
present into Peirce's philosophy. I'm not saying that Peirce's
philosophy is incoherent. Margolis, who proposes an alternative, agrees
that Peirce was "remarkably coherent." I'm just saying there's an
alternative that can be backed up with equal strength. So I think
certain classes of truths can rightly be said to be based on what the
potential of inquiry, within its own 'sphere of belief' and in its own
time, would conclude.
That Margolis is a pragmatist, a realist, but also a relativist and a
constructivist, I think offers us an alternative to see realism and
pragmatism from a new perspective, perhaps yielding a wider
understanding of what these terms mean, and maybe even deepening our
understanding of Peirce's pragmatism and realism. That's why I brought
this here.
Matt
-----------------------------
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 .
