> On Feb 6, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Eric Charles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > There, as now, I'm not convinced that being a nominalist or realist would > adhere one to a particular sense of right or wrong in such a case. I would > imagine it was relatively trivial to argue in favor of, or against, dividing > the field in such a way, from either side, if your unrelated biases > predisposed you one way or the other.
Nominalism and the more minority view of realism are still both very broad categories. Lots of different views can be found under each category. That’s partially why, as Ben noted, it’s hard to draw out implications. While I’m a big believer in looking at the cash value of an idea, with nominalism I’m not as convinced as some there is one. I mentioned the problem of what is changeable. I think a second consideration is a certain overskepticism towards generalities we find in nature. However the reality is that the examples I gave of skepticism towards certain regularities science finds really aren’t due to nominalism. People completely ignorant of nominalism can make those same mistakes. Especially if there are political incentives towards doing so.
----------------------------- 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 .
