Edwina and Jeff BD,
ET
I think it's the unstated assumption that IF ONLY one can classify
a research action within a specific analytic framework, THEN, this
will result in truthful results.
Peirce never assumed that. I never assumed that. But Peirce
considered that outline a useful map that shows the territory.
That's why I drew the diagram, which I thought was uncontroversial.
ET
Peircean semiosis, in my view, instead sees the world as an active
agential 'complex adaptive system' and therefore, classifying and
categorizing one's methods won't do a thing to help in understanding
what is going on.
I agree. A map can't show what's going on. I wanted to move on after
the first note, but the objections kept coming.
And by the way, I agree with your earlier note about biological systems,
and I plan to reply in a new thread.
JBD
It is an interesting question as to why some formal systems of
logic seem to fit into the order of mathematics that deals with
systems of hypothesis that posit formal relations that are discrete
and finite, while other systems of logic seem to fit into the order
of mathematics that deals with truly continuous systems.
That is certainly an interesting question. Maybe someday in another
thread about something other than classification....
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 .
