List,
While at first I was sceptical of Jon's keeping this discussion going as it
has continued for some time now, yet this most recent post of his reminded
me that the principal issue being considered has *not *been resolved
unless you want to accept John's word that it has been and, by the
Jon, Gary, List,
First, let me dismiss a false claim: "appeal to authority is a logical
fallacy".
Whenever Jon, Gary, or anyone else quotes an entry in a dictionary or an
encyclopedia, they are making an appeal to authority. The requirement to cite
references in an academic publication
John, List:
JFS: The fact that the word 'mark' is used in a way that is consistent with
Peirce's definition in Baldwin's dictionary is another important point in
its favor.
As I have noted twice before, with exact quotations as explicit support,
any use of "mark" that is consistent with
Gary, Jon, List,
My note crossed in the mail with Gary's. I responded to the previous notes by
Jon and Gary (q.v.).
My conclusion: As words, there is no logical difference between the words
'mark' and 'tone' as a term for a possible mark. In fact, any word pulled out
of thin air could be
John, List:
JFS: First, let me dismiss a false claim: "appeal to authority is a logical
*fallacy*". Whenever Jon, Gary, or anyone else quotes an entry in a
dictionary or an encyclopedia, they are making an appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when "the opinion of an
John, List:
JFS: As words, there is no logical difference between the words 'mark' and
'tone' as a term for a possible mark.
Again, the key difference is between Peirce's *definition *of "mark" in
Baldwin's dictionary and his *definition *of "tone"--as well as "tuone,"
"tinge," and
