> On Feb 1, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clark, the inspiration for my own thinking is Isaac Newton. What I would love > to see in the life sciences is an axiomatic framework that hangs together, > much as Newton delivered for the physical sciences... hence my interest in > Peirce. There’s a lot of bad, unfalsifiable science doing the rounds, like > multiverse theory, the invention of dark energy/matter, etc, in regards to > which Wolfgang Pauli’s dismissal “not even wrong” often comes to mind. So > it’s not a case of trying to provide a Peircean interpretation of the > different theories, but to provide a solid foundation for a life science that > hangs together.
I’m not sure I’d put dark matter in the same camp as the multiverse (of various sorts). After all we might not know what dark matter is but we can measure it. Likewise dark energy is just a category for unexplained expansion. We might dislike the name but the phenomena seems very empirical. I’d also not say Newton delivered an axiomatic framework for the physical sciences. But perhaps I’m not quite grasping what you mean by that. Peirce’s semiotics seems more than robust enough to deal with all this. His ontology is much more controversial and perhaps also more unnecessary. That said he does appear to take randomness in a frequentist interpretation as an ontological component of the universe. That’s always interesting when thinking implications of quantum mechanics.
----------------------------- 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 .
