[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 • Selection 7

Thread: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15762 JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15768 JW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15769 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15771

[PEIRCE-L] RE: Peirce's 1880 “Algebra Of Logic” Chapter 3 • Selection 7

Jon,list, As always, thanks for your responses and hints. I worked into the following paragraphs a bit and searched for some cycles and conjugacy classes to make sense of I + J + K = 1 + L + M. It seems that I + J + K is the class of interchanges or conversions. L + M are a class of

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Stjernfelt : Chapter 9

Thread: CL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15739 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15740 CL:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15776 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15777

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism About Theoretical Entities

Sorry to have been away from the discussion for a while. Jon is right that the Pragmatic Maxim is a version of the Razor. But the ontological Razor was no invention of Ockham and so is not wed to nominalism in particular. Already Peirce's realist hero, Duns Scotus, used the Razor two

[PEIRCE-L] bankrupt suicide again

Dear Ben, lists, I strongly appreciate the persistent work Ben has been doing in tracing out, over many postings, the implications of Peirce's problems with the strange rule. I think Ben is quite correct in locating the ambiguity in the quantifier some, taken to mean sometimes a certain one,