On May 12, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
Off-list, Gary Richmond, who's quite busy, sent me this:
66~~~~~~~~~~
Chemistry expresses itself in Peirce's valency theory (the term is
not his
but Ken Ketner's who hasn't been given enough credit yet for his
work in
this area, something you hinted hadn't been developed in Pierce,
etc.). In
any event, see the reduction thesis at work in organic chemistry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_nomenclature
Trichotomy, the reduction thesis, the development of EGs, etc. all
come from
Peirce's knowledge of and work in chemistry. In some writings he
makes this
explicit.
~~~~~~~~~~99>>
This is a curious paragraph.
It is too terse for me to understand it.
The first sentence is ambiguous to me.
In particular, what is the reference for the term, "reduction thesis"
in this context?
Chemical names are assigned on the basis of a constructive thesis, as
study of the indicated web address will indicate.
This post apparently contradicts Gary F.'s views.
Can someone untangle the intended communication?
Cheers
Jerry
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
