]
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
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 called “extension” and “intension”) in the early 1900s
are no different from his 1867 usages."
I completely
John, list,
I think we all agree that Peirce’s concept of information has significant
advantages over Shannon’s, for semiotic purposes. But in reference to his
current monologue, Jon appears to be claiming that Peirce’s early (1866-7)
concept of “information” is better (less “nominalistic”)
10 matches
Mail list logo