Jon A., List: It was also Herbert Simon who (rightly, in my view) observed that design in general, and engineering in particular, is a matter of satisficing rather than optimization--"good enough" rather than "best possible."
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben, List, > > I think it was Herbert Simon who I first recall lumping > engineering under the heading of the “design sciences” > but I don't know if that usage was original with him. > > Coincidentally, again, if you believe in such things, > I've been reviewing a number of old discussions on the > Peirce List in preparation for getting back to my study > of Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives and there are a few > places where the exchanges with Bernard Morand branched > off onto the classification of signs. > > Here is the initial exchange: > > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_ > 1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_10 > > Bernard gives his Table of the “Ten Divisions of Signs” here: > > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_ > 1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_13 > > Most of you know this is not really my thing — I prefer > to think of these taxonomies or typologies as detailing > the “Aspects or Modes of Sign Functionality” as opposed > to mutually exclusive and exhaustive ontologies of signs. > So I just submit them FWIWTWIMC ... > > Regards, > > Jon
----------------------------- 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 .
