Dear Howard, lists - Den 22/09/2014 kl. 02.47 skrev Howard Pattee <hpat...@roadrunner.com<mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com>> :
But Howard, this is a different position than the one you presented in the earlier quote just some lines before. There, each foundation of math was legitimized by specific tasks - now they are deemed mere empty epistemological conventions. HP: I did not say that epistemologies are empty. I meant only the arguments for a "winner" epistemology are empty. All these epistemological models in our brains have proven historically to be full of meaning, or at least useful for creative thinking. As I try to get across, they are complementary. What I have not found productive are the ones like the >2000 years of argument over realism vs. nominalism. Few working scientists argue this way any more. Some logicians and philosophers still do. The sports metaphor of one winner is ridiculous, I agree. But there are very good arguments that some epistemologies (e.g. the audacious proposal by the logical positivists) are untenable. And the fact that discussion has taken place in 2000 years does not imply there is no progress. FS: It may well be the case, as you suggest, that there is no simple solution to be found in any of the foundation headlines stemming from the crisis around 1900. But that might just as well be a sign this field is still open for further investigation and progress. HP: These arguments<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics> were more than headlines. What would you call progress? Elimination of one epistemology? Speaking about strawmen, I think you're making one now by trying to make me this sports referee eliminating all but one winner. As to the nominalism/realism issue there are - as you know - many different types of nominalism and realism, including various compromise proposals. A good argument for some version of realism is that even nominalists continue to use certain general terms ("the mind", "human brains") in a way suggesting they refer to structures in reality. FS: I still think this discussion address deep issues which are not solved by archiving the whole field as one of indifferent conventions. HP: I agree (except indifference is not the same as complementary). This discussion is great! My last complaint of "unproductive arguments" was too strong. Of course I agree we should openly consider the values of all epistemologies. But I do not see the value of trying to eliminate all of them except Peirce's, whatever it is. I am not convinced Peirce was right in everything. I do think he had a good proposal for an epistemology of mathematics (that abstract objects are accessible via the manipulation of tokens of diagrams presenting, in turn, diagram types) - but the sciences have progressed since Peirce's time and I think epistemology should be done by continuous consideration of ongoing scientific development (including the human and social sciences). Best F
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
