Jon, When Peirce called a theory 'fallible, he did not mean "free to make adjustments". There is a huge difference between "free to apply to new areas" and "free to adjust (i.e. change) the theory itself"', The first (new applications) is "normal science" in Kuhn's terms. But the second is a "paradigm shift" caused by some serious error in the foundations of the theory. JAS> I agree that the conclusions of semeiotic are "eminently fallible," as Peirce himself described them. That is why we are not locked into treating his speculative grammar as rigid dogma but are free to make adjustments that we deem appropriate in accordance with the results of our own investigations. We simply need to be clear about those deviations and acknowledge that they are deviations, Question: What flaws, errors, or discrepancies have you found in Peirce's semeiotic? If you found some areas that Peirce did not cover, then doing further research to cover those areas is "normal science". That would require new data about aspects that Peirce did not address in his writings. But changing the theory (even "adjustments") is a very serious matter. That would only be justified if you found some serious contradictions that couldn't be covered by "normal science" -- i.e., making new observations and adding some methods for adapting Peirce's theories to the new data. What are your reasons for the adjustments? 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 .
