Gene,
The most important message ever in Peirce-list is this one you posted!
I repeat: ever!
I am literally schocked by the fact, that I am the first to respond.
This late.
Am I conversing with human beings? - Or just kinds of extensions to
automatization of everyday life & "common sense"
Dear Edwina et al,
Regarding your first point. Edwina: "If I understand you correctly, you
are suggesting that 'empathy', as a societal characteristic, i.e., a
habit/Thirdness within a population, might be removed from that
population's behaviour. Such a population, I suggest, couldn't last
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Yes as noted in the Wiki article [yes, I know, I know, how plebeian
of me]..on Sheldrake, Brian Josephson [Nobel Laureate in Physics] -
who does know of Peircean semiosis and indeed, supports it..wrote in
criticism of
John, Kirsti, list,
John Sowa wrote:
A useful term is 'prescientific'. That is not the
same as 'unscientific'. It just means that the methods of
science are not applicable. Perhaps someday they might be.
But nobody knows how.
I agree. Peirce used the term 'prescientific' in places in
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Eugene, list
Interesting. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that
'empathy', as a societal characteristic, i.e., a habit/Thirdness
within a population, might be removed from that population's
In the past generation in the United States, empathy among college
students, as measured by standardized tests, has dropped about 40%
according to a 2010 University of Michigan study, with the largest drop
occurring after the year 2000. This is the new normal. Should we now
suppose the previous
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Kirst, list:
I'm not sure of the logic of:
"Does belief in God have effects. - It most certainly does. No
statitical
tests needed. "
Can the effects of a person's belief in god be linked
Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence. Even
though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full
approval. But on being that was not the case.
Being was to him the key to what is real. What was real (to him) was
effects.
Does belief in God have
On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
That may be true. That may be like the existence of God.
There are no proofs that God exists. There are no proofs that
God does not exist.
In fact, there are no two people --
John,
Actually Sheldrake was able to test a hypothesis (which, to my knowledge
he did not himself believe in at the time)on non-local effects. His
series of experiments (one will never do) on pidgeons are truly
ingenious and suberb AS experimental designs.
If that is agreed (after thorough
Kirstina,
I'm sympathetic to the possibility of paranormal phenomena. In fact,
I know of some unexplained examples. But the only thing we can say
is "They're weird, and we don't know how or why they happened."
Sheldrake has not been searching evidence for 'parapsychology' as such,
as a
kirsti, list:
You said,
"If I were to bring up biology to this discussion with you , it would be
very different from your conception of biology. – Would take all too much
time and energy to get our views close enough."
If you're genuinely concerned about this matter, then just say the
Helmut,
Now you are talking! Excellent post.
"Interaction" is one way of taking relational logic seriously.
But it does not follow that "explanation" (if based on scientific
evidence, may not have any objective definition. Or whatever the term
used. I would prefer the expression: "objective
t;> epigenetic mechanisms.
>>>> When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
>>>> convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
>>>> have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
>>>> carrying mechanism fo
not an explanation. Neither is the
>>> "Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
>>> Peircean
>>> "Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
>>> is
>>> merely an observation. I thin
ier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] [2]
FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosem
on.
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] [2]
FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
SUBJECT: Re: [
Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list,
I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was
tied up with other things. But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and
the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer
in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis. For
t;>> transmitted,
>>> and so on.
>>> Best,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr
>>> "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely work
tion
>> noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither by
>> genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore
>> self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, but
>> thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees (n
June 2017 11:19 PM
TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED
Talk
John S, list,
John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that
mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk
John S, list,
John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, not
r a selectionist explanation.
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM
> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED
> Talk
>
>
>
> John S, list,
>
>
>
> John
<peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk
John S, list,
John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing is
a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing ought to be a
dogma.
Nothing should be does not quite amount to nothing is. CSP was for the
first, not for the second.
Are there dogmas in science? Could there be? If so, how could one tell?
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 1.6.2017 09:34:
On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I agree that #3 is not a dogma
John S, list,
John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, nothing
is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that nothing *ought *to
be a dogma.
And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," materialism,
necessitarianism (recall his response to
On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.
As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree,
nothing is a dogma of science.
John
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to
Ben, list,
I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science.
Best,
Gary
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Benjamin Udell
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Gary R - ah, that's better. I figured I had missed something.
Thanks.
Edwina
On Wed 31/05/17 6:58 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina,
The list is of dogmas of science which Peirce did
Gary, list,
My understanding is that "3. The total amount of matter and energy is
conserved" is not a dogma of science and contradicts current physical
theory, which argues that the total energy (including mass) of the
universe increases as the universe expands, and would decrease if the
Edwina,
The list is of *dogmas *of science which Peirce did *not* adhere to.
Best,
Gary
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - you are saying that all but #9 of Sheldrake's axioms are
implicit or explicit in Peirce's work. I must be missing something
because I consider that
Axioms 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - i.e., all but 3
33 matches
Mail list logo
