On 5/23/2018 2:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
This is because CSP logic, which he repeatedly said was based on chemistry failed and the reasons why it failed to represent chemical logic now very clear, at least to me.
Peirce never used the term "based on". It would be better to say "an analogy with the diagrams of organic chemistry". And when you say "repeatedly", what was the date of the first one? Peirce wrote his early attempts at developing a graph logic in a letter to O. M. Mitchell in 1882. That letter did not mention chemistry, and it came after Venn (1880). Venn had written two articles in the same issue: the first one gave many examples of logic notations, including Frege (1879) and Peirce (1880). The second one discussed many kinds of diagrams for logic, and it added that Frege's notation could also be considered a kind of diagram.
he foresaw the grammatical constraints in his (1860’s) specification of the breadth and depth of information.
Without seeing a quotation, I don't know exactly what you're referring to. But the inverse relation of breadth vs depth (also called extension vs intention or comprehension) is as old as Aristotle. And it is usually called a semantic relations, not a syntactic one.
Peirce failed to grasp the notion of identity in chemistry, even in its logic form of 1890-1910.
The first-order subset of his existential graphs have an exact mapping to and from his 1885 algebraic notation for FOL. I'm not aware of his discussions of "identity in chemistry". Could you quote an example?
In my opinion, Wittgenstein was, is, and will be scientifically incoherent.... "Local thoughts only.” Proclamation after proclamation after proclamation… great narratives, but meaningful?
On the contrary, Wittgenstein's language games represent the essence of science and engineering, and they're highly compatible with Peirce: "It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme. Only, one must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain. It is equally easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague. It is not so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly certain at once about a very narrow subject." (CP 4.237) Every branch of science, especially physics, has some elegant theories and a hodge-podge of mutually inconsistent approximations for an open-ended variety of special cases. Organic chemistry, for example, has been called "the science of side effects." 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 .
