]
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017 4:35 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'
I have always been concerned about the implications of false information for
the definition of information. Is false information information? Is false
knowledge
I have always been concerned about the implications of false information for
the definition of information. Is false information information? Is false
knowledge knowledge? I should think the answer must certainly be "No" for
knowledge, because to know is a factive verb, meaning that it
Jon A, Jeff D, and Gary F,
JA
Why don't we put this on hold for later discussion?
I was about to send the following when your note appeared in
my inbox. It should be sufficient for the word 'information',
but we can discuss other issues later.
JD
I take the following passage to indicate
ic was to
> demonstrate just how basic they are. I could supply a dozen or so
> quotes from Peirce to back this up, and will do that if you wish, but
> there's probably no need for that.
>
> Gary f.
>
> FROM: Jeffrey Brian Downard [ <mailto:jeffrey.down...@na
wish, but
there's probably no need for that.
Gary f.
FROM: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
SENT: 28-Jun-17 18:15
TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'
Hello Gary R, John S, Gary F, Jon A, List,
I take the f
L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'
Hello Gary R, John S, Gary F, Jon A, List,
I take the following passage to indicate that Peirce changed his use of
"depth" and "breadth" in some respects some time between 1867 and
d "depth" work in the context of the
> mature semiotic theory.
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354>
>
>
> ---
June 28, 2017 2:24 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'
Gary F, Jon A, John,
Gary F wrote that he holds that: "Peirce’s concept of information did NOT
change over the years, and that his usages of “breadth” and “depth” (for what
are now usually cal
dmire John’s conciseness and would
> like to see more of that from the rest of us on the list.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 28-Jun-17 16:16
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject:
:16
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'
In my previous note, I forgot to check Peirce's own definition in the _Century
Dictionary_.
Whenever there is any debate about Peirce's use of a word, it's useful to check
whether he happened
10 matches
Mail list logo
