> On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:47 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Theoretical physicists are of course less practiqual minded. But the right > point of comparison would then be theoretical chemists. > > The key point, however, is that neither chemistry nor physics should be taken > as equivelants to the buch of people currently practicing the these sciences. > > That would be reductionalism, ignoring the basic views by CSP.
Theoretical chemists are physicists. <grin> To your key point though I’m not quite sure what you mean. The point of objection is how practical the field is, but surely that question can’t be asked independent of the people practicing and the way they practice even if not reducible to those people.
----------------------------- 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 .
