> On Apr 2, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > > I was simply pointing out that the Logical Positivist argument is not as > simplistic as Popper stated it, and that, Carnap said immediately said: "of > course, falsifiable!" The Peirce family were very well aware of > experimental variation and error during verification. Benjamin Peirce's > "Criterion" on dealing with statistical outliers is ready evidence of that. > But this pragmatic does not invalidate the primary importance of verification > per se. > > They were only wrong (mathematically and in terms of logical syntax) in terms > of a dependency upon the truth method, as Godel showed emphatically (in my > view). The moment you introduce the notion of "this" and "that," of "true" > and "false" you, of pure mathematical necessity it may be claimed, fall into > dualism and the detached mind. > > And this is a fault also of Charles Peirce, although he can be said to have > been "less wrong" overall because he was following his father with his notion > of "third." But as you probably know, there is no ready way to deal with this > idea with syntactic rigor. It remains a conception of the mind, while reading > linear operations as dyadic
Well I think it goes a bit deeper than that as Quine shows. Of course Quine has his own issues. But I confess to liking Quine much more than Carnap. As for Peirce, I think his solution is that inquiry never ends. That combined with thirdness and his notion of continuity solves most of the problems. I fully admit it’s not satisfactory to many: thus Putnam returning to various issues regarding warrant.
----------------------------- 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 .
