BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert -
I certainly agree that eternity/the infinite is very long and most
especially towards its end, but I do quibble that verbiage [whether
expressed as a cuckoo or squid] can - I'll insert 'always' -
contribute positively to natural selection.
What more often happens is that a population and its verbiage
becomes ingrown, because it is isolate from others and from the real
world, and - well, perhaps this is one of the benefits of natural
selection - it atrophies, withers and disappears.
Edwina
On Wed 13/05/20 1:03 PM , robert marty [email protected]
sent:
Gary, John, List
John I will be less severe than you and perhaps more pragmatic and
"virile"( 😉) considering that this verbiage that does not seem to
have the function of "block the way of inquiry" has another - perhaps
worse - that is to "drown the way of inquiry" ... in doing so it
tests the robustness of theories and probably contributes positively
in the end to natural selection... but "in fine" it can be very far
and we know that eternity is very long, especially towards the end
.... . I also noted the strategies of cuckoo (large eggs on the
threads) and that of squid (cloud of quotes fleeing) ......
Best,Robert
Le mer. 13 mai 2020 à 17:52, John F. Sowa a écrit :
Gary,
That is the most anti-Peircean statement imaginable:
GR> It would once again appear that Edwina and John expect everyone
to have always and only the same interests as they do. Edwina, for
example, characterizes anything else, notably, theorizing, as "an
irrelevant exercise" undertaken only by people who "prefer the
isolation and comfort of what [she calls] 'the seminar room'. . .
far, far, far from the real empirical objective world." Well, that's
her opinion. I, for one, do not share it.
Theorizing is absolutely esssential for understanding anything. But
Peirce insisted that any theory that has any claim to be scientific
must be exhaustively tested against observations. And that most
definitely includes his categories, which depend on the most careful
possible testing against "experiences in the phaneron".
You cannot understand anything Peirce wrote unless you repeat the
kind of disciplined testing that he did in developing and revising
his theories. Just quoting Peirce without repeating his very careful
methods of analysis and testing produces nothing but superficial
verbiage.
John
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
