Thanks Clark. I don't know Feyerabend either. I only know of his provocation. I hadn't thought that he was doing things intentionally.
I agree that it is likely to prove unhelpful to talk of things in such (abstract) terms. This is why I offer an argumentation. Once you specify the premises, you set the idea in motion. So, I offer phi spiral abduction to be discussed, out there, outside of myself, so that we can take those things Peirce recommends to keep in consideration, things that are embedded in classic thought. To say that things are unhelpful and leave it at that doesn't do justice to those who are trying to remind us that the same issues keep popping up. So, why not start with a more sophisticated foundation? One that recognizes one, two, three in relation? Best, Jerry R On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:21 PM, CLARK GOBLE <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > To me, we are talking about whether Feyerabend or Peirce can offer a > definite suggestion on how to proceed if we are frozen with respect to > advancing on a problem. To say there’s no systematic way to proceed is > antithetical to Peirce, who offers abduction, a very definite formalism > that asks you to be explicit about three things, the icon (C), index (A) > and symbol (B) and to consider them in relation according to CP 5.189. > > > I’m not sure those are as antithetical as people are presenting them. > Peirce here is extremely vague and Feyerabend is being intentionally > provocative to get people to look past the biases that had arisen in > thinking about science. What Peirce presents is far less a method than a > set of concerns to keep in mind as one approaches the problem. It’s far > from a systematic approach IMO. Whereas I’m far from convinced Feyerabend > would dispute we need focus on the things Peirce brings up. (Perhaps that’s > because I don’t know as much Feyerabend as the rest of you probably do > though - when I read him though he always just seems to be engaging in a > bit of hyperbole to get people to question their biases) > > The possibilities are simply too numerous. > > > This is why I think talking about these things in this fashion is > ultimately unhelpful. Science has its biases towards things like beauty and > simplicity. But of course what is important in science is a while lot of > people each with somewhat different biases and a bias towards what works. > Yet in general, if only because of background training, there are also a > slew of issues they keep in mind that often are in tension with each other. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
