I see Peirce as someone who paved the way to now and that is among the reasons there is so much moroseness about -- we are more or less left with the power of our own thinking -- but that's where it has always been. Things are looking up. Peirce helped open the gate for the unprecedented.. Apropos of this I would commend the following. https://twitter.com/stephencrose/status/1008884368574644224
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:18 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, I certainly concur with the points being raised here. The > selfishness, in particular, inspires every manner of unfalsifiable > conjecture to be spouted, by average scientists trying to be first with a > great idea. There’s a lot of rubbish swilling around, and this has the > effect of dumbing down the rest of science, so that the really good ideas > are lost in the swill. Unfalsifiable and untestable Big Bang, dark matter, > dark energy, the future impacting on the past (quantum eraser experiment), > etc, etc, and on it rolls, the conjectures spew from all over, they don’t > end. Some might have merit. Most do not. > > I do not disagree that environmental problems need to be taken seriously. > However… and this is non-trivial… the onus is on climate change proponents, > for example, to prove that their government-heavy, groupthink-driven, > corruption-prone initiatives are more effective than the efficiencies to > which lean-and-hungry small-government systems are predisposed. Not to > mention the fake, corrupt science and problems with the peer-review process > as identified by the likes of Richard Horton (2015) and Matt Binswanger > (2014). The climate-change fashion is not to be trusted because of this. > > And then there is my favorite bug-bear, entropy. It continues to amaze me > that Neo-Darwinists, especially, so easily turn a blind eye to the entropy > problem… or perhaps this should not amaze me, maybe we are not all that > different to our pagan-god-worshipping ancestors. With this kind of leap in > judgment, Neo-Darwinism is a belief system, no different to any kind of > religion. Absent is any kind of axiomatic framework to bring it all > together. > > Thinking within the context of an axiomatic framework is essential. Isaac > Newton is my favorite example because his axiomatic thinking is quite > explicit. CS Peirce is another good example, but his axiomatic thinking is > implied… I don’t think he spelled out what it was that structured his > reasoning. Peirce’s implied axiomatic framework (in the context of > biosemiotics), I anticipate, will play an essential part in making sense of > quantum mechanics. Central is the question of pragmatism… how does any > entity (including subatomic and atomic particles) “define” the things that > matter? In what manner is “space” experienced by different mind-bodies > (holons)? > > Think of everything that we now have out our fingertips… the science, the > physics, the telescopes, the realization of what a galaxy is and that there > are trillions of them, and trillions of billions of planets. Then think > about the primitive degeneracy that western culture is rapidly sliding > into. If one accepts the notion of reincarnation (as I do – the question of > nonlocality of self has serious merit), then the odds, for most of us, of > returning to a culture that knows what we know about the moon, the sun and > the stars will be pretty slim. Dark prospects await most of us, and it will > be back to dying from simple diseases, worshipping our local star-god, > drinking stagnant smelly water and not knowing why it makes you sick, child > sacrifice, and wondering whether the little old lady across the road > track is a wicked witch who’s cast a spell on your family. > > In conclusion, a Peircean-biosemiotic based paradigm understands the > relevance of imitation (in the deeper sense of knowing how to be) to > pragmatism. It understands the relationship between personality and > culture, and therefore the nature of groupthink, corruption, and what makes > cultures healthy or sick. Where Peirce says “the man is the thought”, I say > “the culture is the thought,” and this opens up the narrative to thinking > about what heaven and hell might be. Fixing climate change? The problem > lies elsewhere and band-aid fixes by even the most well-intentioned will > fail to address them properly… it’s just pissing into the wind… maybe delay > the inevitable, or maybe make it worse, depending on how fake the science > is. For the most part, the climate-change fashion just gives > virtue-signaling hypocrites the opportunity to masquerade their moral > superiority, and shame those that don’t accept their fake science. > > Regards > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Sunday, June 10, 2018 5:45 AM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] The real environmental problems are less scientific > and more ethical > > > > List, > > > > Today I received a Facebook post which included this quotation: > > > > “*I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, > ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good > science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental > problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need > a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how > to do that*.” Gus Spaeth, a US adviser on climate change > > I wonder (1) whether list members agree that the top environmental > problems aren't "biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change" > but, rather, "selfishness, greed and apathy" and, if the latter (2) the > extent to which one concurs that "scientists don't know how to address" > these issues, that even after decades of "good science" around these > problems that science hasn't been able to significantly impact the most > serious environmental problems because these are essentially ethical issues > and, finally (3) what thoughts forum members might have on how Peircean > pragmatism might address these environmental/ethical issues, however one > might frame them. > > > > I'd be interested in the views of frequent contributors to this forum, but > also those of less active list members. I don't present this as a matter > for 'debate' but, really, just thoughtful reflection. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > *718 482-5690* > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
