Eric, List: Actually, Peirce's definition of "real" was being such as it is regardless of what any person or finite group of people thinks about it. Taken to the third (pragmatic) grade of clarity, the "real" is that which *would *be the object of the "final opinion"--the consensus of an indefinite community after infinite inquiry.
Where in Peirce's writings do you see him leaving open the possibility that there might not be real laws of nature? The indispensable reality of 3ns (abbreviation for Thirdness) was one of his bedrock principles, although his fallibilism precluded him from holding it (or anything else) to be *absolutely *certain. Maybe that is all you meant. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Eric Charles < [email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > Interesting! Dropping the answers in terms of the offending terms: > > - Is there anything real that cannot, in principle, be known by > humans? > > The pragmatist says "no", on account of that not being what the term > "real" means. Real things are just those things that have effects, and > effects are things that can, at least in principle, be detected/known. So a > proper contemplation of what our terms mean (i.e., taking the time to get > our ideas "clear") gives us the answer to that, without any need for > metaphysical assertions. > > - Are there real laws of nature that govern existing things and > events? > > Well, Perice leaves open the possibility that there might not be. He > implores us to latch onto any regularities we might think we see, and > determine the scope of those regularities, for the value they provide, > while leaving open the possibility that none might truly be "laws of > nature" in the classic sense. So in this sense he is optimistic regarding > the realist assertion that laws of nature exist and can be discovered, but > is not asserting with certainty that the effort to find them will work out. > > Or so it seems to me...... > > Best, > > Eric > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Supervisory Survey Statistician > U.S. Marine Corps > >
----------------------------- 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 .
