> On Sep 23, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu > <mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>> wrote: > > So, I'd like to ask, what are the key data that a logical theory should draw > on for the purposes of generating and testing hypotheses about real the > nature of the dicisign? How might we analyze those data for the sake of > clarifying what needs to be explained? How might we correct for errors that > might have been made in the collection of those data?
While not truly an answer to your question, I think it would be interesting to place Peirce’s conception of the decisign in many classic functional uses of “proposition” to see if it works, where the problems are, and what new fruitful phenomena we might find. I think Frederik has done this somewhat in the chapters I’ve read thus far. I think the most fruitful use of decisign over traditional propositions is how non-linguistic propositions work. The example of a photograph is a great example that’s discussed in the chapter. I think the place of indices is a key value of Peirce and also frequently a place where many uses of propositions fail due to their being tied to judgments in a fashion that seems to go against most use. I’m not suggesting a linguistic turn here when I discuss use. Just that the debate about propositions does have a history and that history suggests aim, targets and functions for the term. It’s useful to analyze that genealogy when considering decisigns.
----------------------------- 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 .
