For CSP the real was not reducible to existent individuals, be
theyindividual facts fould out by measuments in empirical,however strict
experimental investigations, OR individual minds, ie. any particular
persons, taken as existent individuals.
The real, for CSP, revealed itself only 'in the long run'. Not only as
continuing series of experimentation, but also as continuing endeavour
to interpret the findings in a coherent way. With the aim of pointing
out the best ways to continue, boht experimenting and theorizing. - All
theorizing contains metaphysics, in one sense and form, or another.
This has nowadays been sometimes called the underdetermination of all
and any thoeries. No theory can ever be fully backed up by any amount of
experimental facts.
If that was assumed, then CSP would have had it all wrong. The absolute
truth would be possible to achieve on a certain point of time. - No
future development thus needed.
This did not happen with classical mechanics, classical physics. It was
not proven wrong, it was only proven that its field of proper
application is limited.
With quantum mechanics a similar process is still going on. Uniting the
particle view and the wave view presenting an acute problem.
Something similar happened within mathematics, with the parallem axiom.
If research is seriously taken as a communal enterprise, not just as
comething existent (human) individuals coop up in their mind, and then
(mysteriously) are able to share, then the great divide between natural
sciences and human sciences must be seriously reconsidered. - Not just
taken as granted and self-evident.
All science is a social and cultural enterprise, thus these two must be
taken seriously in philosophizing on and about science.
Best,
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 5.12.2016 16:05:
On 11/29/2016 2:57 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
Treating thirdness as something real in the universe independent
of what any particular person thinks about it is key.
That is not a new point. Scientists have always assumed that the
laws of nature are "really real".
Ernst Mach is the positivist who claimed that the laws of physics
are *nothing but* summaries of observations. His perverse attitude
warped the minds of the Vienna circlers, who warped the minds of much
of 20th c philosophy. For the rest of life, Carnap continued to teach
that perversion in his courses on the philosophy of science.
Both Peirce and Einstein considered Mach's emphasis on observation
to be useful as a guideline for clarifying the foundations. But
Mach was the target of Peirce's condemnation (CP 1.129):
Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any
metaphysics
-- not by any means every man who holds the ordinary reasonings of
metaphysicians in scorn -- and you have found one whose doctrines are
thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with
which they are packed. We must philosophize, said the great
naturalist
Aristotle -- if only to avoid philosophizing. Every man of us has a
metaphysics, and has to have one; and it will influence his life
greatly. Far better, then, that that metaphysics should be criticized
and not be allowed to run loose.
Einstein considered Mach a good experimental physicist, but "a
miserable
philosopher". In his Gedanken experiments, Einstein was inspired by
Mach to consider what observations might support a theory of relativity
-- e.g. traveling on a train that was moving at the speed of light.
Mach would never approve of Gedanken experiments, and he would have
denounced them vehemently. Fortunately for physics, Einstein had the
courage and good sense to ignore Mach.
Unfortunately, the psychologists did not have anyone of Einstein's
stature to defend them. As a result, they allowed the behaviorists
to destroy serious research in psychology for over half a century.
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 [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 .
