> On May 21, 2019, at 1:27 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > GR >> I truly doubt that Jon needs your "help," while insulting and >> hubristic comments such as saying that if he refuses to accept your >> "help" that he has "nothing but a puffy cloud of words" is, in my >> opinion, below any serious scholar's dignity. > > When it comes to logic, I treat Jon as a student. He's not happy > when I say that, so I haven't said that recently. Instead, I stated > the most appropriate analogy for his style of reasoning: "puffy > clouds of words". If that's considered insulting, I'll just give > him a "gentleman's C".
List: The following is merely my opinion of the on-going comments of John Sowa that I find grossly misleading interpretations of CSP’s writings. First, in my opinion, the special forms of logic that CSP created are rooted in CSP’s knowledge of chemistry as it developed in the period of 1850-1910. The notion of spots and his attempt to relate these to chemical roots and propositions and graph theory are highly speculative Sowa's attempts to relate CSP’s logic to the of continuous functions, first order predicate logic and the CSP’s graphs is, at best, mystical, at worst, I will comment out of politeness… Secondly, it is clear, in my opinion, from history of John’s posts that his philosophy of mathematics is at a very primitive level, and at odds with CSP’s philosophy of mathematics.. In my opinion, all readers of this list serve should very very carefully evaluate all of John’s mathematical claims. Beware. Enough said. Thirdly, I have stopped responding to Sowa’s posts because, in my analysis, Sowa’s views are remote from the bedrock of CSP’s writings. As I understand his views, first order predicate logic is the ultimate test of CSP’s logical forms. But, first order predicate logic is very remote from logic of chemistry and the bedrock of CSP’s graph theory. The logic of the table of elements associates several physical attributes (indices) and hence the propositions of chemical logic can not be antecedents of predicate logics. The grammar of chemical sentences requires both copula and predicates. Enough said. Finally, I would compliment Jon Alan Schmidt for his intellectual integrity, persistent consistency careful linguistic analyses. While I occasionally disagree with Jon’s interpretations, his views are meaningful to me. In closing, if I may be so bold, a question for John Sowa. Would you consider becoming a student of Jon Alan Schmidt? It is rare opportunity for you to cast away the imprisoning chains of predicate logic. It is also an opportunity to probe the illations between scientific thought and semiotics. >From my reading of your book on Knowledge Representation, both opportunities >are possible approaches to improving your work on artificial intelligence. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
