BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I think Robert has to provide his purpose for us - because my
interpretation of Robert's outline is different from your
interpretation.
I read Robert's outline - not as referring to 'applied mathematics'
within phaneroscopy, as you do - but as referring to the role of pure
mathematics within the scientific method. And this method includes
pure mathematics.
That is, I see phase 2 [for want of a better term] as pure
mathematics; then, phase 3, the inductive phase, I wouldn't call it
'applied mathematics' but an examination of the actual viability of
the Posets.
Edwina
On Sun 15/08/21 8:43 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: And notice the difference between this and the outline by De
Tienne, where we are told that 'pure mathematics plays freely with
forms, unconcerned with whether they play any part in experience' but
then, he also says that 'phaneroscopy may help mathematicians through
corrective suggestions, observational clues, theoretical validation'.
The two outlines are different because they have different purposes.
Robert's post as nicely summarized below primarily aims to describe
what he calls "the chronological order of discovery" within
phaneroscopy, which includes the application of mathematics, while
André's slides seek to distinguish phaneroscopy from pure
mathematics in accordance with Peirce's classification of the
sciences. As the latter states in the four quotations that I provided
Friday (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00168.html [1]),
phaneroscopy draws general regulating principles from mathematics,
while mathematics draws data, instances, special facts, and new
applications from phaneroscopy (as well as the other positive
sciences). Again, it seems like we might have finally landed on some
common ground here.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 9:35 AM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[4]> wrote:
Robert, list
And here is the scientific method as outlined by Robert - and, in my
view, Peirce. It seems different from that outlined by De Tienne.
And I have several questions about these differences.
Robert's Outline of the Scientific Method:
1] the abstract observation of phenomena [this is mere physical and
mental observation of 'facts']
2] the search in the mathematical repository for an object in strict
correspondence (i.e. isomorphism) with these observations (otherwise
mathematicians can create new ad-hoc objects). --> a Poset
3]the inductive phase: by going back to the phenomena provided with
this abstract form, [and testing its validity]
4]In the purely mathematical field, we can now generate new forms
with all guarantees of universality
Notice how embedded this method is in BOTH matter-and-mind; how the
two continuously work together to understand the real world. Notice
how abduction generates an hypothesis and model [poset], which is
then tested within induction, which is then set up as a deductive
premise.
And notice the difference between this and the outline by De Tienne,
where we are told that 'pure mathematics plays freely with forms,
unconcerned with whether they play any part in experience' but then,
he also says that 'phaneroscopy may help mathematicians through
corrective suggestions, observational clues, theoretical validation'.
[Question: When does this interaction happen?]
Because he also tells us that we have: 'The Urge to transition out
of mathematics', for 'we cannot count on mathematicians to help
figure out what goes on in experience"....and insists on this
irrelevance, despite mathematics being 'the first' stage of research
'.He writes: ".How do we transition out of it into a concern no longer
detached from but attached to the conditions sustaining the cosmos,
the world, nature, life in general, our life?"
A. My first question- is, so what is the point of mathematics if you
have to transition out of it?
B My second question is: What is the definition of Mathematics? De
Tienne seems to redefine mathematics - moving it from what I
understand as an Argument - i.e., an intellectual process in
Thirdness, capable of offering rhematic symbols [those Posets]…..
into a purely detached abstract 'feeling' in a mode of Firstness!
That is, are 'Posets' or Forms really similar to what I understand as
Qualia? Or are they Rhematic Symbols?
As Rhematic Symbols, I can see Posets as explaining the Real World.
I don't see how a 'possible' - which to me is Qualia - can explain
the Real World.
That's where I have trouble with the differences between Marty and
De Tienne's outlines.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00168.html
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
