Peircers,
I added a few items to my ledger of loose threads and critical points.
As the fog clears — in my head, not so much out-of-doors — I begin to
see that one of the biggest talking (past-each-other) points turns on
the difference between metaphysical and methodological applications
of
Peircers,
The following post from about this time 2 years ago pretty well summarizes
my current view of the whole nominalism vs. realism controversy. To be as
brief as possible, I do not see the issue as reflecting some cosmic battle
between good and evil, but simply a matter of what rules are
Inquiry Blog
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/20/pragmatism-about-theoretical-entities-1/
Peirce List
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15467
FS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15800
reject.
Best,
John
-Original Message-
From: Frederik Stjernfelt [mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk]
Sent: March 11, 2015 6:19 PM
To: Jon Awbrey; Peirce Discussion Forum (PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu);
biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatism About Theoretical Entities
Dear Jon, lists
Dear Jon, lists -
You're right about the economy principle. But it is interesting when it was
first articulated as an explicit doctrine.
Calling Peirce's realism extreme, I was only quoting the man, calling himself
a scholastic realist of a somewhat extreme stripe (5.470)
The extremity lies in
Inquiry Blog
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/01/20/pragmatism-about-theoretical-entities-1/
Peirce List
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15467
FS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15800
