Edwina, Jon, List,
Edwina is emphasizing points I have also been trying to get across.
ET: I think JAS and I, at least, are discussing two different issues. No-one
is arguing against the use of specific terminology, accepted by all, in
particular, in the scientific disciplines.
JFS: The pos
Claudio, List:
CG: It has been a long time since I last wrote to the List
I am delighted that you did so today, and I hope that it will not be as
long before you do so again!
CG: Coming from architecture and design disciplines in general, I am
interested in being able to use the Peircean approa
List, JAS
I think JAS and I, at least, are discussing two different issues.
No-one is arguing against the use of specific terminology, accepted by all, in
particular, in the scientific disciplines. And this includes the term created
by an individual for a specific specimen or action or..medica
John, Edwina, List:
Like Gary, I would prefer not to engage in another back-and-forth on this
well-worn ground, so I will just offer a few comments and hopefully leave
it at that.
JFS: The position he recommended was the Linnaean conventions for naming
biological species.
Peirce did not so much
I accidentally hit the send button and I apologize for the incompleteness of my
previous post.
In response to the question about the definition of nominalism, I must admit
that I have always been fascinated by Peirce’s discussion of the difference
between nominalism and realism.
Max H. Fisc
List,
I agree with Edwina’s points. I hope Peirce’s comments will focus us on the
matter at hand.
87 (20 August 1908) 164-165: Thought and Things: A Study of the Development and
Meaning of Thought, or Genetic Logic. Vol. II.
On 20 August 1908, Peirce published a review of James Baldwin’s Exp
Gary, List
1] With regard to terminology - the question becomes - whose terms are to be
used? My point is that there are other researchers who are focused on similar
issues, each unknown to the others, [such as complex adaptive systems, the
development of information, anticipation processes,
Edwina, List,
I would prefer not to get into a back and forth with you on this matter. I
will comment briefly, and if you care to respond, I will give you the last
word.
We disagree on the matter of the use of different terms for the same
situation. I would argue that Peirce held that to do so fo
Dear Etwina, Gary, List
It has been a long time since I last wrote to the List, however, I still
receive the corresponding information and from time to time I find
precise indications on the possibility of deepening in some Peircean
concept in my extensive library on Peirce.
Coming from archi
John, List
I think that Peirce’s focus on the ethics of terminology points to his claim
that a term that he uses means, so to speak, ’this but not that’.In other
words, his focus was that a term has a specific meaning..and I see absolutely
nothing wrong with this!!
My point is different - What
Edwina, Gary, Robert, List,
I'm sure that we're all familiar with Peirce's note about the ethics of
terminology. But it's not clear whether its influence was good, bad, or
indifferent. The position he recommended was the Linnaean conventions for
naming biological species. But very few things
Gary R, List
1] Yes - I am aware of Peirce’s insistence on accurate terminology. I am also
aware of the many different terms he used for the same thing. I am also aware
of the many different terms that other scholars use to refer to the same
situations as Peirce describes. My point is that w
John, List,
In the same vein, I also published another article in Academia.edu, which
consists of a commented reading of CP 265, the item that follows his
diagram of affinities between classes of signs of 2.264 (a sort of
intuition that Peirce had of the structure of order that is a lattice,
which
13 matches
Mail list logo
