John, Edwina, List: ET (to JFS): Thank you for this outline - and I totally agree.
I agree with the responses this morning by both Gary F. and Jeff. As in the case of pure mathematics, Peirce's phenomenology/phaneroscopy is a *distinct *science in its own right, with its own purposes and subject matter, and must be carefully distinguished from its *applications *within the other positive sciences, including logic as semeiotic, metaphysics, and the special sciences. ET: I think it's a key comment - to differentiate the *subject matter* of a science from the *agent-who-works* with that subject. Just to clarify, where Peirce states that the mathematician frames a pure hypothesis and draws necessary conclusions from it without inquiring or caring whether it agrees with the actual facts or not, I understand him to be primarily talking about the *subject matter* rather than the *agent-who-works*. In other words, "mathematician" here simply means "practitioner of (pure) mathematics." Someone who *does *inquire and care about such things might be a self-described mathematician, but is not engaged in *pure *mathematics as defined by Peirce within his classification of the sciences. After all, Peirce himself was an accomplished mathematician, but was not doing *pure *mathematics during his phaneroscopic, logical, metaphysical, and scientific investigations. In those contexts, he was instead *applying *mathematics as a phaneroscopist, logician, metaphysician, and scientist, respectively. ET: This also suggests, to me, that thought is far more complex and networked than the linearity offered by De Tienne. Please elaborate on this remark. Where exactly does André state or imply that thought is simple and linear, rather than complex and networked? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:05 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > John, List > > Thank you for this outline - and I totally agree. > > I think it's a key comment - to differentiate the subject matter of a > science from the agent-who-works with that subject. > > Therefore, to set up mathematics/AND mathematicians, as De Tienne seems to > do, as alienated from other sciences, and requiring a Move-On situation is > illogical. And this is exactly what a number of us have been critiquing > about De Tienne's outline. > > Therefore - as John points out, the mathematician is not working as an > isolate, indifferent to whether his theories are relevant in the 'real > world' but - as in the example of Peirce - is quite capable of using > abstract AND practical theories in his work. Some people might be more > comfortable in the abstract vs the practical and vice versa but the point > is - to differentiate between the Agent and the Subject matter. > > This also suggests, to me, that thought is far more complex and networked > than the linearity offered by De Tienne. > > Again, thanks to John for pointing this out. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
