Dear Edwina et al,
Regarding your first point. Edwina: "If I understand you correctly, you
are suggesting that 'empathy', as a societal characteristic, i.e., a
habit/Thirdness within a population, might be removed from that
population's behaviour. Such a population, I suggest, couldn't last beyond
a generation, for the psychological reality of 'empathy' or connection
-with-others, is vital in human society, which learns most of its behaviour
from others [rather than inheriting it]."
Yes, you understand that correctly, but I allow that empathy is a deeply
engrained, biosocial instinctive capacity requiring sufficient empathic
parenting to develop, and "eradicable" only as pathology, notably as
clinical narcissistic disturbance. And I am in agreement with your
conclusion.
Gene Halton
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
> Yes as noted in the Wiki article [yes, I know, I know, how plebeian of
> me]..on Sheldrake, Brian Josephson [Nobel Laureate in Physics] - who does
> know of Peircean semiosis and indeed, supports it..wrote in criticism of
> Maddox's rejection of Sheldrake's hypotheses as 'not testable'. Josephson
>
> criticised Maddox for "a failure to admit even the possibility that
> genuine physical facts may exist which lie outside the scope of current
> scientific descriptions"
>
> Again, testing for the reality of potentiality, which plays a huge role in
> the ability of an organism to Anticipate and Hypothesize, is very
> difficult, since our scientific method, powerful as it is, is focused on
> discrete individual actualities.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Mon 12/06/17 1:53 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> John, Kirsti, list,
>
> John Sowa wrote:
>
> A useful term is 'prescientific'. That is not the
> same as 'unscientific'. It just means that the methods of
> science are not applicable. Perhaps someday they might be.
> But nobody knows how.
>
>
> I agree. Peirce used the term 'prescientific' in places in reference to
> his early cosmological (what we'd call pre-Big Bang) musiings. On this list
> Jon Schmidt has argued that such early prescientific comsological
> 'hypotheses', for example, those occurring in certain of the 1898 lectures
> published as Reasoning and the Logic of Things, esp. in consideration of
> the famous Blackboard example, offer support for a belief in God as “Really
> creator of all three Universes of Experience” (CP 6.452) . (In addition,
> those prescientific musings can be seen to offer an origin of Peirce's
> three universal categories; but that's for another discussion.)
>
> Meanwhile, scientific method has caught up with some previously not
> (adequately) testable hypotheses about our own post-Big Bang cosmos, so
> that experiments on such 'spooky' phenomena as quantum action at a distance
> have recently (2015) been shown to be real to the satisfaction of at least
> some scientists working in quantum physics. See:
> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2015/11/nist-team-prov
> es-spooky-action-distance-really-real
>
> As described in a paper posted online <http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.03189>
> and published in Physical Review
> <http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250402>
> researchers
> from NIST and several other institutions created pairs of identical light
> particles, or photons, and sent them to two different locations to be
> measured. Researchers showed the measured results not only were correlated,
> but also—by eliminating all other known options—that these correlations
> cannot be caused by the locally controlled, "realistic" universe Einstein
> thought we lived in. This implies a different explanation such as
> entanglement.
>
>
> It seems to me very unlikely, to the point of impossibility, that science
> will ever (can ever?) develop methods to test pre-Big Bang hypotheses (so,
> again, the term 'prescientific' seems apt), or for the reality of God. But
> if quantum action at a distance can be supported experimentally, other
> 'spooky' phenomena (like telepathy) may prove testable in time as well.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
>
> [image: Blocked image]
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:08 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/12/2017 7:33 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
>>
>>> It may well be that it is LOGICALLY impossible to prove.
>>>
>>
>> That may be true. That may be like the existence of God.
>> There are no proofs that God exists. There are no proofs that
>> God does not exist.
>>
>> In fact, there are no two people -- believers or nonbelievers --
>> who will give you the same definition of God. Just ask them.
>>
>> But I do think they are worth some attention.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. A useful term is 'prescientific'. That is not the
>> same as 'unscientific'. It just means that the methods of
>> science are not applicable. Perhaps someday they might be.
>> But nobody knows how.
>>
>> 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>
>> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
