> On Mar 27, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > > As long as Peirce was writing for readers with relevant backgrounds > in the practice of math and science it wasn't really necessary and > would even have been considered impertinent for him to waste words > on points that everyone in that audience would regard as routine. > > Does that have any bearing on questions about the reality of generals? > It's hard to say. I guess it's bound up with the reasons I think the > only real realists I know and the only practicing pragmatists I know > are all mathematicians, or at least scientists who use mathematics, > for the moments they are immersed in doing so.
Mathematics certainly biases one towards realism, especially in physics. While physicists are infamous for inconsistency in foundations by and large I think most have the idea that the universe in mathematical. While there’s still strong empiricist and instrumentalist tendencies there’s also a traditionally strong realism towards at least the foundational laws of physics. Where things get more tricky is whether the laws/structures that aren’t foundational are real. I think Peirce says yes, but many would find that problematic.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
