John Alan , List Jon Alan, not being a crusader against ADT, I am much less interested in ADT's confusion than if he could explain (i.e. state more clearly, make more intelligible) "these essential principles of mathematics" in such a way that one can distinguish clearly what kind of mathematics is at their foundation... Perhaps you can present them to me yourself because you must know them? Regards, Robert Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
Le mar. 10 août 2021 à 20:25, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Gary F., List: > > I likewise remain puzzled by the persistent claims that André (or anyone > else) is somehow "arguing against mathematics," especially with > over-the-top language about an alleged "phaneroscopy vaccine against the > mathematics virus." After all, he states plainly in slide 21 that > "*mathematics > *comes up with fundamental principles essential to phaneroscopy." As for > the acknowledged misquotation in slide 23, I brought it to André's > attention yesterday and he replied as follows. > > ADT: Thanks, Jon, for alerting me to this conflation. How that could have > happened is beyond my memory: I compiled a list of quotations many years > ago, and put it to different uses over time. I’ll make the correction once > I return next week from all an all-too-brief and rare vacation week. > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 9:09 AM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > >> Bernard, thank you for a thoughtful post (and thanks to Jon S for an >> equally thoughtful reply to it). I especially appreciate your tacit >> acknowledgement of the emotional basis of your own response to De Tienne’s >> choice of language at “the starting point in slide 23.” But my own response >> will be limited to this part of your post: >> >> BM: By pointing at the opposition egocentrism / world existence, De >> Tienne is repeating the well known duality between abstract and concrete, >> imaginary and existence. BTW Marty is entitled to see it as excluding >> mathematics out of a scientific realm that will end confined into the >> experimental sciences. I don't think that such a project can be qualified >> as peircian. >> >> GF: Of course Marty is entitled to carry on his crusade against a >> putative attempt (by De Tienne and other scholars) to “exclude mathematics” >> from science and from a Peircean understanding of it. He is also “entitled” >> to attribute malicious intent to anyone who does not sign on to his >> crusade, even to those who simply ignore it. But in my opinion, the rest of >> us are no less entitled to ignore it as simply irrelevant to what De Tienne >> is saying about phaneroscopy, and to maintain a focus on the actual content >> of his slides. >> >> After a few attempts to communicate with Robert on a reasonable basis, >> which I soon realized were futile, I have simply turned my limited >> attention elsewhere. Frankly, given a choice to spend my time reading Marty >> or reading Peirce, I will choose Peirce every time. Robert is entitled to >> carry on his crusade as long as he likes, and others are entitled to give >> it the attention they think it deserves. As for me, I have nothing to say >> about it that hasn’t been said already. >> >> Turning back to the “slow read,” I might point out that it is about >> *phaneroscopy*, including its non-reciprocal dependence on mathematics >> for abstract principles. The fact that nearly all sciences call upon >> mathematics for principles under which to organize their observations is >> *taken >> for granted* in De Tienne’s talk, as it is too obvious to be made a >> focal point in a discussion of phaneroscopy. Robert and his fellow >> crusaders naturally interpret this taking-for-granted as a *denial* of >> the importance of mathematics, and insist on reading this denial into De >> Tienne’s explicit text, regardless of what it actually says in its context. >> As we have seen, questioning this style of interpretation only leads to >> more unfounded accusations of malicious intent and various intellectual >> sins. Consequently I feel entitled to say nothing further about the whole >> crusade, which I consider a distraction from more relevant issues. In fact >> I’m already regretting giving so much time and thought to it in this post. >> Enough already. >> >> Gary f. >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to > l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the > message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
