> On Mar 1, 2017, at 8:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your points are well-taken. As I observed at the end of the article, modern > engineering reasoning relies largely on the relatively stable habits of > matter, whereas ethical deliberation involves the much more malleable habits > of mind that manifest in human behavior. We can model the former quite > successfully with mathematics, but the latter are typically amenable only to > less reliably predictive approaches, such as narrative.
Oh fully agree and I hope you didn’t take me as dismissive. I rather liked it. I just think that pre-modern vs. modern where science and engineering become intertwined is very different even though both depend upon stabilities in matter.
----------------------------- 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 .
