Steven – Good. I will set up to start on item 1 early in September. > I propose the following questions to discuss: > 1. What was Peirce's evolutionary position? What did he see as > evidence/reasoning for that?
The reason I formulate the Scientific Hypothesis that way has to do with making it empirically falsifiable. To be a meaningful hypothesis it needs to be a statement about the universe . Popper's Question: what evidence, if it were to occur, would force you to conclude that your core hypothesis defining your research program, was false (viz not completely true; inherently incomplete). Popper's Question goes beyond naive falsification – where any old piece of counter-evidence is taken to knock out the core of a research program. PQ turns out to be asking a qualitative, phenomenological question – asking you to give a 'prior specification' (prior to your next experiment) of a TYPE of evidence that your research program, come what may, could not make sense of – could never explain. For instance, a plausible answer from a Newtonian perspective might be non-local electromagnetic wave phenomena. You probably won't be surprised that I am just finishing a book about the limits of (tradition mechanical) science and the turn to pragmatism. Terry ============================================================= On Aug 17, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: In my terms, I take what you refer to as "the Scientific Hypothesis" to be an epistemological statement, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
