RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

eritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 19 December 2016 1:37 AM To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (w

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

t; > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, 11 December 2016 1:14 AM > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: [PE

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

John wrote: "Note that Peirce did not use the word 'semantics'. That word was introduced into analytic philosophy by Charles Morris's misunderstanding of Peirce. Carnap loved that word because it gave his nominalism a thin veneer of meaning. It enabled him to define modality in terms of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Gary R., Clark, list, Yes, the grad student in 2005. I don't know whether s/he was a student at all, but I had reached the point of exasperation in silly but polite arguments with the person, so I starting saying things like "I don't know what your teachers are telling you, but..." and saying

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 2:17 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > In the past, Ben Udell has had some revealing things to say about his > experience of writing and editing Wikipedia articles--the good, the bad, and > the ugly--and I'd be interested to hear his views regarding

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Clark, list, Clark, I'm in general agreement with what you've written. It seems to me that there remains much variation in the quality of Wikipedia articles, depending on the topic, the contributors, etc., and that, for example, in some fields--and not just music by a long shot--that the greater

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > I am currently concerned with thermodynamics (to design new motors and heat > pumps, and solve all the energy problems of the world, of course, what else), > and in the german-language-Wikipedia about thermodynamic

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

    Clark, you wrote, that Wikipedia does not have a discussion around the issue. Well, the german Wikipedia has, but now I am wondering which way is better: If the is no possibility for discussion, objectors are forced to edit the article, if they have found a mistake and feel obliged to correct

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

List, I am currently concerned with thermodynamics (to design new motors and heat pumps, and solve all the energy problems of the world, of course, what else), and in the german-language-Wikipedia about thermodynamic work ("Technische Arbeit", "Volumenarbeit"), I have seen that one of these

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Thomas903 wrote: > > There are a lot of scientists, so I won't claim that all agree with a single > definition. But when I see the term "law" being used by scientists (e.g., > Kepler's Law), it is normally used to describe a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

On 12/13/2016 2:43 PM, Thomas903 wrote: I wanted to comment on statements made last night about the meaning of law-theory-hypothesis. I wasn't attempting to state a definitive analysis of scientific terminology. I was making the point that logicians use the word 'theory' in a formal sense

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Clark, list, Clark wrote: For the record I wouldn’t trust Britannica on technical topics either. I'm not sure what you mean by 'trust' here. An encyclopedia is meant principally as a first or preliminary source and, as John Collier suggested, students--and, indeed, all researchers--should

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Dear list: drat! I lost my opportunity to say, "I hope your suggestions may bring a whole crop of fruit". oh well, "the jerk store called... Best, Jerry R On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > Dear John, Thomas, list: > > > > To those who propose putting

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Dear John, Thomas, list: To those who propose putting forth philosophical definitions for old terms, Peirce gives a kind of snarky response in “Mr. Peterson’s Proposed Discussion”. And yet, despite his awareness that *Symbols grow**… Omne symbolum de symbolo.* (7)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

John Sowa, others ~ I wanted to comment on statements made last night about the meaning of law-theory-hypothesis. For convenience (i.e., mine), I will address your statements in a different order: 1-3-2. See below. Regards, Tom Wyrick "Scientists make a three-way distinction of hypotheses,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

On 12/13/2016 11:15 AM, John Collier wrote: For some theories, like number theory and set theory, there are statements that are true but not deducible. I would think they are entailed by the theory even if not provable, so I would call them part of the theory. I agree. I just blame my fingers

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 13, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I agree with Edwina. There have now been a number of studies comparing > Wikipedia and Britannica, such as this published in Nature > https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

ten by mathematicians and scientists, usually quite > acceptable and informative. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:58 AM >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] > Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 5:12 AM > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy) > > On 12/12/2016 1:24 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > I don’t like the term “legitimate” precisely because it

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

/collier From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 5:09 PM To: Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> Cc: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy) I don't think one should take a 'snooty' or elit

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

and scientific comments are, as written by mathematicians and scientists, usually quite acceptable and informative. Edwina - Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell Cc: Peirce List Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

I stated that it was Wikipedia to make clear that it was "for what it's worth". I confess that I was pressed for time. I did subsequently send a link to an article on the Planck length for the general public from Fermilab Today:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

If Wikipedia is taken as a scientific authority, then the situation is really bad. Kirsti Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 11.12.2016 22:36: Ben, List: On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

A very, very important note this is. - The deepest theoretical problem (to my mind) lies in scaling, which is necessary in order to deal with the very large and the very small. Practical problems with measuring follow suit. They are just problems of time and efforts. - Once there is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > Clark, please read more carefully what I wrote. > > Obviously, atoms are presupposed logically to be symmetric in order to derive > QM eqn for spectra. > But, this belief is mathematically grounded on the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

On 12/12/2016 1:24 PM, Clark Goble wrote: I don’t like the term “legitimate” precisely because it’s ambiguous. However I think good theories are theories that allow us to inquire about their truthfulness by making somewhat testable predictions. I agree with both points. I think that some of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > > wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble >>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > > wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble >>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble > > wrote: >> >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

List, A good short report of a discussion of a workshop involving several prominent theoretical physicists and philosophers of science held at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich last December on the importance of Popperian falsifiability (or not) in consideration of, in particular, string

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> > wrote: >> >> One critical fact that is “the elephant in the room” is the intrinsic >> asymmetry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > My impression is that Smolin has drawn on some Peircean ideas, such as that > of habits or laws evolving in nature, but that he is less Peircean than he > initially seems, what with Smolin's views on discrete space

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > One critical fact that is “the elephant in the room” is the intrinsic > asymmetry of nearly all biomolecules. Life Itself depends on the asymmetries > entailed from parent to offspring and the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > I think we need to distinguish between pragmaticist meaningfulness, - clarity > of conceivable, imaginable practical implications - and questions of > methodeutic economy of inquiry > Oh, I agree that’s the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Jerry, you wrote, I do not understand the pre-suppositions of this assertion. What motivates it's absoluteness (100%!!) [End quote] I said that quantum gravity theories are _/not/_ 100% untestable in current practice. You wrote: At any rate, discreteness looks pretty good now!

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

My impression is that Smolin has drawn on some Peircean ideas, such as that of habits or laws evolving in nature, but that he is less Peircean than he initially seems, what with Smolin's views on discrete space and on the relationship between math and physics. - Best, Ben On 12/12/2016 1:44

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

List, Ben, John: > On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Clark, list, > Yes, the question of measuring sub-Planckian phenomena involves more nuances … > > So quantum gravity theories are not 100% untestable in current practice. > I do not understand the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Clark, John, list, I think we need to distinguish between pragmaticist meaningfulness, - clarity of conceivable, imaginable practical implications - and questions of methodeutic economy of inquiry. [Quote Peirce] Thirdly, if pragmatism is the doctrine that every conception is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > So quantum gravity theories are not 100% untestable in current practice. There have been some that as you note could be tested. The big ones though can’t although they do have problems - as often their proponents

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:38 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > >> [String theoy] gets at some key issues in philosophy of science >> regarding what is or isn’t a legitimate theory and why. > > That's true, but the word 'legitimate' sounds like an attempt > to "block the way of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Clark, list, Yes, the question of measuring sub-Planckian phenomena involves more nuances than I got into or understand, and, for example, phenomena at sub-Planckian lengths are not completely inaccessible in principle if, as in the famous example, a universe-sized collider could tell us

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

On 12/12/2016 10:57 AM, Clark Goble wrote: I think the bigger problem is that most of the big theories (loop quantum gravity, string theory) don’t really have even “in theory” tests that are limited by technology. String theory in particular has the problem that it explains too much. I would

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

(Sorry somehow managed to send this to the old list number. Stupid Apple Mail.) > On Dec 11, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Benjamin Udell > wrote: > > According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor > of 10, the shortest

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:37 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi > wrote: > > The string theoty is a legitimate theory, even if (and when)it does not hold. > It has paved the way forwards. - I tend to agree despite recognizing its problems. However this gets at some key

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 10, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Helmut wrote: > > The hypothesis is dark matter, but there is no dark matter available for > experiments. Also the string theory is not verifiable with experiments, > because the hypothetic strings are smaller

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 11, 2016, at 9:17 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Theoretical physicists certainly recognize the need for > experimental tests. Unfortunately, they're running into the > limits of current technology at the very large and very small. I think the bigger problem is that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Yes, I was thinking of QED and more generally quantum field theory, but at that point I was unsure whether Jerry meant pre-QM classical electrical field theory, or some EF theory that tries to account for quantum effects while remaining classical, or even EF theory as incorporated by QED.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Ben: > On Dec 11, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Jerry, you said that you knew of no mathematical or physical or chemical > reasons for the unmeasurability of lengths smaller than the Planck length; > you asked whether the maths of electric field theory are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

On 12/11/2016 7:44 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: if electrical field theory contradicts quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, then it is valid (at most) only in a classical limit. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the well developed theory that unifies quantum mechanics and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Jerry, you said that you knew of no mathematical or physical or chemical reasons for the unmeasurability of lengths smaller than the Planck length; you asked whether the maths of electric field theory are constrained by the physical principles (i.e., quantum mechanics and the uncertainty

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Ben: The foundation of electrical field theory preceded W. Heisenberg by several decades. Cheers Jerry > On Dec 11, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Jerry, list, > > It has to do with the uncertainty principle. Here's an excerpt from a > discussion "Planck

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Sorry, I forgot to include the link: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-11-01_NutshellReadMore.html Jerry, list, It has to do with the uncertainty principle. Here's an excerpt from a discussion "Planck length, minimal length?" by Don Lincoln, Friday, Nov. 1, 2013,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Hi all, The string theoty is a legitimate theory, even if (and when)it does not hold. It has paved the way forwards. - Kirsti - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Ben, List: > On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor > of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known > improvement in measurement instruments could change that.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Sorry, I don't know why my link to the 2014 abstract of "Test of Lorentz invariance with atmospheric neutrinos" got messed up. Here it is again: https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4267 Also corrected below. Best, Ben On 12/11/2016 2:48 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: Gary R., Helmut, list, I think that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Gary R., Helmut, list, I think that that's pessimistic and that Peirce would agree. The problem for string theory and any other theory of quantum gravity is that, for people to test its distinctive predictions with a collider, the collider would need to be as big as the observed universe; so

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

C 745* >> *718 482-5690* >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:48 PM, jacob longshore <strate...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Clark, List, >>> >>> >>> >>> This is an unprepared reply (= my books aren't available to me now), but >

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

above work. And I could well be misunderstanding things. But this is how I recall my understanding (!) of Peirce on his classification of the sciences.   Best, Jacob     From: Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 6:54 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L]

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

eld began as a descriptive science and developed >> into a classificatory one. As a field's body of understanding grows, it >> becomes more lawlike because it discovers laws governing that area of >> inquiry. >> >> >> >> I don't have my books unpacked yet, so

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> of the sciences. > > > Best, > > Jacob > > > > -------------- > *From:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 7, 2016 6:54 PM > *To:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy) > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

On 12/7/2016 1:52 PM, Clark Goble wrote: I do think there is a different type of bias and type of thinking for those doing more theoretical work. No two people have identical interests, preferences, and ways of thinking. The word 'bias' has a negative connotation that is only appropriate when

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

, 2016 6:54 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy) I'll confess that much of Peirce's classification of the sciences never made much sense to me - if only because in practice anyone actually working in any field seemed to not fit the category. However the abov

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Peirce similarly divided the physical sciences into nomological, > classificatory, and descriptive, and considered engineering to be a practical > science. > > CSP: Nomological physics discovers the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

(Changing the Subject by request so years from now when people are doing a search they have an idea what’s being discussed) > On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:04 AM, John F Sowa > wrote: > > Clark and Jerry, > > Every branch of science has four kinds of