Mara, Ben, List I'm excited for the discussion that you have set up with your introductory remarks. Keeping it brief, (I'm sneaking this email in while at work) I wanted to focus one of your first questions:
Is the assumption that the universe is regular enough to afford explanation? Or is it simply an affirmation of the power of the combination of instinct, intuition, logic, mathematics, and phaneroscopy to create explanatory patterns out of randomness? Peirce's argument against Mill's notion that we can form knowledge about the universe because it is regular has always puzzled me. It strikes me that this argument is of fundamental importance (especially when dealing with themes the of truth & reality), however I've always felt something lacking in my understanding of Peirce's take down. If somebody is willing to rehearse Mill's position and Peirce's response, I think we could get closer to answering Mara & Ben's question. Best, Ulysses
----------------------------- 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 .
