Edwina, I agree with that point, and I believe that Peirce would too: > we have to consider that some models more accurately represent this external reality than others - and also, Peirce did feel that we could, among the 'community of scholars', over time - reach a more and more accurate representation of this reality. But Peirce also recognized that no finite list of discrete symbols could capture the full richness, complexity, and continuity of any aspect of the universe. If we view "reality" through microscopes and telescopes of greater and greater power, we get totally different "model-based views" at each order of magnitude from electrons to galaxies. Even at a human level, a physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist, physician, pharmacist, linguist, anthropologist, engineer, lawyer, banker, real-estate developer, and poet would have radically different models and ways of describing the same scene. And if you gave them the same instruments for viewing the scene, they would still have widely different models at each level. For that matter, those roles I mentioned above are not mutually exclusive. The same person, for different purposes, could apply widely different models. 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 .
