John S., List: JFS: I would say that every diagram is an image ...
Peirce explicitly said otherwise in CP 2.277, dividing hypoicons into images, diagrams, and metaphors. JFS: But there has never been a sharp distinction between science and engineering. Maybe not in fact, but certainly in perception. My comments about this in the article were intentionally somewhat polemic. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:22 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/27/2017 5:07 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > >> A diagram, in Peirce's terminology, is not an image; it is an icon, >> with indexical and symbolic elements, that embodies the significant >> relations among the parts of its object. An algebraic equation is >> a diagram just as much as a geometric figure. >> > > I agree with some of the points in this passage, but I disagree > with the first one. I would say that every diagram is an image, > but it may be a composite image that contains components that > are interpreted as iconic, indexical, or symbolic. > > An algebraic equation is a diagram that people may draw on paper > or contemplate as a mental image. Chess players who go beyond an > elementary level can contemplate mental diagrams that represent > the chess board. They can play a blindfold game and win against > chess players with lesser skills who can see the complete board > in front of them. > > The diagrams in a chess player's mind are images with both iconic > and symbolic aspects. The image of the board is iconic. But the > images of the pieces become more abstract symbols. > > I touched on how ethical reasoning can also be diagrammatic >> --referencing this very lecture as helpfully summarized by >> Daniel Campos... >> > > Thanks for the reference. I found a free copy at > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289706934_The_Role_ > of_Diagrammatic_Reasoning_in_Ethical_Deliberation > > the last installment of my recent series of articles on "The Logic >> of Ingenuity" (http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107). >> > > That's also a good article. But there has never been a sharp > distinction between science and engineering. Even Aristotle > claimed that knowledge from praxis and theoria are both important > for metaphysics. Peirce would certainly agree. > > In the 19th century, the British Royal Society was limited > to "gentlemen" who were sufficiently wealthy that they did not > have to earn a living from their studies. There was a lot of > prejudice against Faraday, but he eventually became FRS. > > John
----------------------------- 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 .
