Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

Jon Alan, List This response is another example of what I mean by "characteristic" inability to produce a contrary argument. The corollary is a flight into childish denials: no, no, no ... with always Nathan Houser used as an authority figure of rescue, although I have shown that there is : -

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }List Are these strawmen? From my reading of the De Tienne slides, the function of mathematics within our analysis of the world, an analysis which includes phaneroscopy, seems to be non-existent. De Tienne made

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

Robert, List: This response is another example of what I mean by a characteristic adversarial stance that is unwarranted. No one is advocating "discriminatory attitudes ... towards mathematics." No one considers mathematics to be "evil" within the context of phaneroscopy. There is no "movement

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

Jon Alan, List JAS's usual and unsurprising response is an authoritative judgment not supported by any argument, illustrated by selected quotes interpreted in specific ways. Once again, he has not read the text he is supposed to criticize (this will appear later). One can add to that impute

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

Edwina, List: ET: Does phaneroscopy as, Belluci states, "have its own method and its own procedures" [p 5] ? Atkins evidently thinks so. RKA: I have also argued that we need a broader, three-tiered conception of phaneroscopy’s method. On the first tier of this conception is simply the direct

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

Jon AS, list, Your final paragraph (referring to the particular/material categories) reinforces a remark I made Wednesday concerning ADT’s slide 48: “Peirce indicates in a couple of texts that the “material categories” could be picked out phaneroscopically as well as the “universal

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }List I don't find that Marty's critique of Belluci was 'adversarial'. It filled in the missing critique of De Tienne, which was not critiqued by this List. Does phaneroscopy as, Belluci states, "have

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

Robert, List: I have refrained from commenting on this up until now because it is indeed mostly unobjectionable, and my remarks on it would largely repeat what I have already said on-List. Unfortunately, it reflects a characteristic adversarial stance that is unwarranted since no one here

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

List, Here is the public version on Academia.edu with some modifications. (DOC) Critical analysis of a Francesco Belluci's paper. | robert marty - Academia.edu also available on ResearchGate :

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

List, I posted this review of Francesco Belluci's article that was opposed to me eight days ago. The same day, I informed the author. He confirmed receipt. However, I did not get any answer on a list characterized by particularly vigilant participants quick to react to the slightest deviation. I

[PEIRCE-L] Critical analysis of Belluci's paper

List, I remind the thread opened by Phillys Chiasson, entitled "Another perspective." In this thread, Gary Richmond wrote : *"I had a similar experience teaching