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 .