H…
Well, every individual can connect with pragmatism and realism with whatever
competencies and experiential wisdom they have acquired.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Aug 17, 2021, at 4:30 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> Jerry,
>
> No problem. My assertions belong to the department of
List, Gary
CSP professed to be a pragmatist and a realist.
As such, he based his epistemology and ontology on semiosis and the meaning of
signs.
Can you clarify how the assertions of your message are related to CSP’s
philosophies?
Observation of a cedar tree is nice.
Cheers
Jerry
>
Jerry C., List:
JLRC: CSP professed to be a pragmatist and a realist.
Above all, Peirce professed to be a synechist, which by his own definitions
is what made him also a pragmat(ic)ist and an extreme scholastic realist,
as well as a tychist and an objective idealist.
JLRC: As such, he based
List, Robert:
It may be useful to add a few comments that may be helpful for the comity of
this group.
Higher education in the sciences is radically different from eduction in
mathematics.
I believe that my own personal experience is typical for most, but not all,
scientists.
Mathematical
Bernard, List:
The quoted statement rather obviously *does not* explicitly claim that "the
world of existences can be scientifically stated without the help of
mathematical reasoning." Instead, it simply says that (pure) mathematicians
cannot be counted on to help us "figure out what goes on in
Gary F, Bernard, List
"'Phenomenology, which does not depend upon any other positive
science, nevertheless must, if it is to be properly grounded, be made
to depend upon the Conditional or Hypothetical Science of Pure
Mathematics"..."A phenomenology which does not reckon with
Le 17/08/2021 à 20:41, Jon Alan Schmidt a écrit :
Bernard, List:
For the sake of clarity, please provide an exact quotation where "The
slides by De Tienne explicitely claim" that "the world of existences
can be scientifically stated without the help of mathematical reasoning."
Thanks,
Bernard, the “converse” you refer to, stated exactly, would be that what is or
is not true of the world of existences can be scientifically stated without the
help of mathematical reasoning.
You are asking whether we can “ascertain” that.
Well, there is a cedar tree just outside the window
Bernard, List:
For the sake of clarity, please provide an exact quotation where "The
slides by De Tienne explicitely claim" that "the world of existences can be
scientifically stated without the help of mathematical reasoning."
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer,
List,
The quote CP 8.110 (JAS to Robert, below) asserting that "mathematical
reasoning ... never reaches any conclusion at all as to what is or is
not true of the world existences" is a quasi-truism.
But the problem at hand is: Is the converse also true ?
That is to say : can we ascertain
Dear Jon Alan,
When we put the last lines of CP 3.559 before your eyes, do you look away?
"… *Thus, the mathematician does two very different things: namely, he
first frames a pure hypothesis stripped of all features which do not
concern the drawing of consequences from it, and this he does
John, List:
JFS: They show that De Tienne has misunderstood the role of mathematics in
Peirce's philosophy.
On the contrary, those three quotations show that anyone accusing André of
hostility toward mathematics and mathematicians has completely
misunderstood his point. He *explicitly affirms*
Robert, List,
I strongly agree with your approach, and I would
like to add three
quotations by Peirce (copied below). They show
that De Tienne has
misunderstood the role of mathematics in Peirce's
philosophy.
But I am not claiming that ADT does not understand
Peirce, People were
doing
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I think Robert has to provide his purpose for us - because my
interpretation of Robert's outline is different from your
interpretation.
I read Robert's outline - not as referring to 'applied
Edwina, List:
ET: And notice the difference between this and the outline by De Tienne,
where we are told that 'pure mathematics plays freely with forms,
unconcerned with whether they play any part in experience' but then, he
also says that 'phaneroscopy may help mathematicians through corrective
Robert, List:
I think that we might have finally landed on some common ground here, as I
have no major objections to what is described below as "the *chronological
order* of discovery," especially since the poset (3→2→1) is rightly
described as "a *candidate *to be the 'skeleton-set' of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list
And here is the scientific method as outlined by Robert - and, in my
view, Peirce. It seems different from that outlined by De Tienne.
And I have several questions about these differences.
17 matches
Mail list logo
