Hi Jeff,
I like what you have to say. Question on what you said: A quick look at the history of philosophy should be enough to confirm anyone's suspicions that, as a scientific form in inquiry, it is still in its relative infancy in working out its methods as compared to say, math or astronomy. Where in infancy is philosophy as a scientific form in inquiry? That is, have the most rigorous philosophers accepted CP 5.189 as a formalized starting point to explain unexplained phenomena? Thanks, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:09 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 10/22/2016 3:44 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > >> both explanations are based on belief; I really don't think either >> is open to empirical evidence. >> > > Peirce encouraged reasoning by hypothesis (abduction), but he > insisted that the implications of those hypotheses be evaluated > by testing (purposive action) and observation (perception). > > He was highly skeptical about philosophers who proposed hypotheses > that could not be related, directly or indirectly, to perception > and action. > > In an earlier note, I cited the recent lecture by Susan Haack: > http://www.jfsowa.com/ikl/Haack16.pdf > > In slide 6, she included a photo of Peirce and wrote "Peirce urged that > philosophy be undertaken in the same spirit as the best work of the > sciences, and that it should rely on experience as well as reason." > > In slide 7, she quoted two phrases by Peirce: "sham reasoning" by > theologians and "lawless rovers on the sea of literature." > > At the end (slide 84), she included a photo of Bertrand Russell sitting > in an armchair and wrote "the idea that philosophy can be conducted > purely a priori is an illusion ... but a seductive one." > > I'm sure that Peirce would have been happy to know that people were > still reading, analyzing, and debating his writings a century later. > But I doubt that he would approve of "lawless rovers" on the sea of > what he wrote. > > Instead, he would want his readers to continue the work he could no > longer do: evaluate his hypotheses against their own experience > (by phaneroscopy) and by empirical evidence gathered and published > by others. > > The debate in this thread is useful. Speculation about what he > meant should be tested against the many versions of his writings, > but they should also be compared to the theories and empirical > evidence of the past century. > > I believe that Peirce's writings improve on many of his successors. > His writings about indexicals (based on his long analysis of language) > are a great improvement on the armchair philosophers: e.g., Russell's > hypothesis about definite descriptions, Perry's essential indexical, > and most of the speculation about proper names in possible worlds. > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
