Hi,
Speaking about measurement, my students and I at Rutgers have found
something quite unusual during the past 6 years:
There exists a 3-parameter mathematical equation that (042314-1)
fits data measured from
(i) atoms (blackbody radiation spectra),
(ii) proteins (Gibbs free energy of
Having quantitative aspects is one thing; quantized signs is quite another.
Given Peirce's synechism, I don't think the latter would sit well. Of
course, we don't really know how Peirce would have reacted to, assimilated
quantum theory into his synechism.
-Original Message-
From:
Gary, list,
I think you're off to a solid start!
You wrote,
My first question is, What can we think of this very broad claim
as to the foundational character of the [pragmatic maxim] for all of
science, philosophy, and thought generally? Does Kees perhaps go too
far here?
Post : Peirce's 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Comment 10.9
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/04/23/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%E2%80%A2-comment-10-9/
Posted : April 23, 2014 at 9:30 am
Author : Jon Awbrey
Peircers,
The use of the concepts of identity and teridentity is not to identify a
Jaime,
Highly interesting mail links. Thank you very much! Please, do tell us more.
Kirsti
Jaime Nubiola [jnubi...@unav.es] kirjoitti:
Dear Asim,
Peirce's review at http://www.unav.es/gep/SecretSwedenborg.html is of a book of
Henry James, Sr, the father of Henry James.
Henry James Jr, and
Ben, list,
I agree with you, Ben, that 'foundational' is the wrong word here, and that
Kees' claim is along the lines of what you wrote, namely, that the
pragmatic maxim applies to all conceptions, so it's extremely sweeping.
But is it exactly the pragmatic maxim we're talking about when we're
Perhaps framework rather than foundational, as foundational lies behind, as
it were, whereas semosis accompanies every step along the way?
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:50
To: Benjamin Udell
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal
John, Ben, list,
I very much like this notion of pragmatism being a 'framework' rather than
a 'foundation'. It would as well seem to help resolve the issue mentioned
at the end of my last post as to whether it might be important not to
conflate the informal use of pragmatic ideas with the formal
Gary, list,
You wrote,
So, in a nutshell, my concern, expressed as a question, is:
Shouldn't we avoid conflating the informal (logica utens) use of
pragmatic/critical-commonsensical ideas with the PM itself?
Yes, I agree. The pragmatic maxim reflects aspects of informal reasoning
Ben, list,
I am tending to agree with much that you wrote, Ben, but would like you to
clarify a point or two if possible.
You wrote:
In practice, this _*logica utens*_ aspect occurs not only prior to formal
logic but afterward, in the special sciences too, since such scientists
tend not to be
Kees, List,
I want to, and as profusely as possible, apologize for repeatedly and
erroneously stating that Kees places pragmatism in speculative grammar when
he explicitly says, near the end of the chapter, that pragmatism is a
strictly regulative principle in the normative science of logic, or,
Accompaniment carries no overtone of fundamentality or necessity, no sense of
without which not. Framework does.
From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 13:51
To: Deely, John N.
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 7, framework
No apologies needed. I have no copy of the book at hand so I was raking my
brain wondering how I could have screwed up so badly. In my opinion too the PM
clearly falls within speculative rhetoric. I'm glad that Ben found I had not,
though running through the quotes I think that I should have
Post : Peirce's 1870 “Logic Of Relatives” • Comment 10.10
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2014/04/24/peirces-1870-logic-of-relatives-%E2%80%A2-comment-10-10/
Posted : April 24, 2014 at 12:00 am
Author : Jon Awbrey
Peircers,
The last of the three examples involving the composition of triadic
14 matches
Mail list logo
