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)

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 3:17 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 >>>

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and Democracy (Speak of the Devil)

Jon A, Thanks for pointing to the link to this 2003 discussion in which I'd written: jon, given that two paragraphs later, Peirce writes: >* if the Devil were elected president of the United States, * it would prove highly conducive to the spiritual welfare of the people (because he will not

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 >>

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and Democracy (Speak of the Devil)

Peircers, I ran across this amusing and ever-timely exchange while reviewing and archiving some old discussions: http://web.archive.org/web/20061014000954/http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-September/000845.html Context:

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)

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)

> 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)

> 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 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 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)

> 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

> > 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)

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!