As I read the Stanford piece one thing seems right to me. If a proposition
is found to be untrue, that does not make the proposition itself unreal.
Similarly, if Donald Trump says immigrants are animals which is a
falsehood, his contention is very real indeed. If I say to my wife I am
fine when I have a particular pain, the statement may be false but it is
real. When I say everything is real I mean everything and if there is a
deity that can do more things than Kurzweil says we'll be able to do in 100
years, the scope of everything as a field from which to glean what is real
(relatively speaking) is not an insurmountable challenge.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A wonderful illumination of an unknown (to me) nook. I thought of O.R.
> when I was writing but did not have the knowledge whereof I spoke. But I am
> going to peruse further the excellent beginning and so forth. He joins my
> small pantheon of great unknowns. Whoever wrote the Stanford piece must
> join the group also Thank you. S
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:09 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2018 9:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>>
>>> My point is simply that reality has all sorts of permutations and that
>>> to disclude things is to complexify.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.  And I recommend the anti-razor by Walter Chatton, who engaged
>> in years of debates with William of Ockham.  Both Chatton and Ockham
>> were students of John Duns Scotus.  Ockham was a nominalist who rejected
>> the realism of Scotus.  But Chatton was a realist who defended Scotus
>> in debates with Ockham.  (All three of them were Scots at Oxford.)
>>
>> See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/walter-chatton/
>>
>> Brief summary of the anti-razor:
>> If a proposition p is true and its truth depends on the existence
>> of something x, then the existence of x must be assumed.
>>
>> But Chatton stated his anti-razor in several different versions,
>> all of which imply my summary.
>>
>> 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
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to