Jerry, List,
is the difference, that in modern physics it is commonly agreed, that the reason for the elements to have come into being is a set of natural constants, necessarily very precise, and therefore extremely unlikely, that have made the cascade of fusion in stars, supernovae etc. a necessary consequence, while Purdie has the hypothesis of an evolution of elements, comparable with Darwinian evolution of species? In modern physics, the unlikeliness is either explained with extremely many universes, this high number making one universe with the proper set of constants likely, or a mind behind it, like in theology (God), or pantheism, like the universe would have a mind. In Purdie´s hypothesis it rather seems, that the mind behind it is not a central one, but that every particle, atom, etc. has a mind to join in an evolutionary competition. Was Purdie just impressed by Darwin, or did he think about the consequences too? As Atoms do not interbreed like species members do, they must have another way of passing on their evolutionary successes, e.g. like in Sheldrake´s hypothesis of the morphogenetic field.
Best,
Helmut
List:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
As a courtesy to the list members that are seeking to place CSP writings in historical context, the following recently published paper (a remarkably detailed first person look at the philosophy of chemistry as it was pragmatically practiced in the later part of CSP lifetime) is posted below. Do these lecture notes illustrate the vast diversity of the “bedrocks” of CSP's mental processes?
Analytically, logically, mathematically and philosophically, the prime issue is the role of chemical thought in CSP thought at that period in scientific history, well over a century ago.
In my personal efforts to understand the formal logics of the chemical sciences and how these logics support the pragmatic success of atomic theory in modern medicine (as well as the chemical industry), one facet of this historical paper stands out.
That is, the commentary of Prof. Purdie on the success of his lectures!
Do these commentaries justify CSP’s focus on the “line of identity” in his interpretations of his personal experiences as a chemist? If so, how and why?
A second facet of substantial interest is logical diagram of the elemental chemical relatives, published in Vienna.
I would be astounded if anyone on this list could identify the critical logical distinction that separates this philosophical view of chemistry from the modern notions of physics!
Anyone up to finding this historical ignorance of a fact of great scientific important that eventually altered the basic history of physics, and subsequently many concepts of nature and of the pragmatic and ethical role of science in society today?
As some list readers are curious about the possible meanings of how CSP used (deployed, abused, depended on?) the terms, icon, index and symbol, how can one fit Prof. Purdie’s usage of chemical symbols into CSP’s propositional logic that links qualisign, sinsign, and legisign?
This set of theoretical chemical sorites leads to simple question relevant to the current discussion, Is the concept of chemical identity related to CSP’s “line of identity”?
Have fun!
Cheers
Jerry
Opinion piece
The periodic table and other wallcharts in the teaching of chemistry in St Andrews, 1884–1919
Published:17 August 2020https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0299
Abstract
The teaching of the chemistry of the elements at the University of St Andrews by Professor Thomas Purdie FRS is examined with reference to selections from a collection of recently discovered historic wallcharts and extracts from his detailed hand-written lecture notes. Together these reveal a comprehensive and exciting programme of lectures incorporating numerous practical demonstrations which were continually updated to reflect the latest state of knowledge in what was a rapidly changing field.
This article is part of the theme issue ‘Mendeleev and the periodic table’.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
