It's late and I'm punched out watching the Yankees go down. Just to say I approach this entirely from an experiential side with no sense of what a mathematical theory of inquiry would be. I take inquire to mean any question. If I wonder how I am, to take an example, we could assume I was speaking from doubt but I could be asking the same question to explain an unaccountable happiness or an encounter that puzzles me. My question could have many nuances that would suggest anything from whimsy to simple matter-of-factness. This all would seem far removed from inquiry as an effort to operate within the context of mathematics. So perhaps the differing contexts makes it hard to apply what we sense or understand from Peirce in the same way.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Thread: > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140630220000/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13446 > SR:http://web.archive.org/web/20140701002000/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13447 > JA:http://web.archive.org/web/20140701003000/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13448 > SR:http://web.archive.org/web/20140701024001/http:// > permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13449 > > Stephen, List, > > Not a problem, we all must begin from the doubts we actually have, and > there a few things we have more doubts about than whether a given > description or theory of X is really a good description or adequate theory > of X, and that is every bit as true if X = inquiry as anything else. > Indeed, the whole point of an "inquiry into inquiry" is just to find an > adequate theory of inquiry. > > What prompted me to open this particular can of worms -- Dispersion, > Uncertainty, Doubt, Entropy -- was the linkages that potentially exist, at a > very abstract logical and mathematical level, between this complex of > subjects and Peirce's hints about the nature of the inquiry process. > > > Jon > > Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> I have no argument save my own guesses and my recollections of reading >> something that said to me that CSP thought as I suggested so I will read >> some more and see if anyone else chimes in. Cheers, S >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
