Edwina, Gary F, Jon AS, ET> My question about 'pure theorizing' so to speak, also arises from the quote below: "Now the whole process of development among the community of students of those formulations by abstractive observation and reasoning of the truths which must hold good of all signs used by a scientific intelligence is an observational science, like any other positive science, notwithstanding its strong contrast to all the special sciences which arises from its aiming to find out what must be and not merely what is in the actual world. (CP 2.227, c. 1897; my emphasis] Yes. Every science, including semeiotic, must begin with observational data. That is why I have insisted on examples. Without data, it's impossible to discover, test, evaluate, or even discuss any scientific claims. ET> After all - since mankind's emergence- we have had multiple theories about our reality - most of which have a logical basis, are reasonably coherent and yet - have no capacity other than their own insistence and our acceptance - to move out of a pure Argument and into the real world of Secondness and explain what is going on in this real world. Yes. For Peirce, semeiotic is a fallible science. It *aims* to find out what must be. But as we can see from physics -- the most advanced of all the special sciences -- every theory that has been proposed is eventually shown to be limited to the kinds of observations on which is has been tested. ET> many different research disciplines are exploring this real world - and their vocabulary differs - even though they are talking about the same processes! Therefore - I think that the Peircean world should not reject the research of other disciplines merely because the terms are different. The analysis is dealing with the very same processes - and it can be shown that the logical and pragmatic infrastructure of the Peircean framework is similar to that of these other disciplines. In his 1903 classification, Peirce made room for those sciences. He admitted that he had not done much work in many of them, but he did not say that their work or terminology was unworthy of being considered a science. GF> I simply find myself unable to come up with an individual experience that could be referred to as a sign token and has no context. Every example of a sign that I can remember or imagine experiencing has some kind of context which limits the kind of interpretant(s) it can generate. Yes. Science begins with data and is tested on data. The best theories are true of a wider context than the examples from which they were derived. But it's not possible to make claims beyond the range that has been tested.GF>: First, in the real world there is no disembodied mind and no disembodied semiosis. Hence there is no context-free semiosis. Yes. 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 .
