List, Edwina: First, Edwina, I will not answer directly your question about allowances on this list. In my experiences here on this list, I fear for my freedom to continue to express my analysis of the ontology and epistemology of the chemical sciences.
As for the connections between the trichotomy (the nine terms that CSP used to express his feelings about the connections between mathematics and chemistry as well as an unrestricted number of other disciplines), it appears to me that CSP was clear about the nature of his beliefs about assertions (5.269-70). A valid inference is either complete or incomplete. An incomplete inference is one whose validity depends upon some matter of fact not contained in the premisses. This implied fact might have been stated as a premiss, and its relation to the conclusion is the same whether it is explicitly posited or not, since it is at least virtually taken for granted; so that every valid incomplete argument is virtually complete. Complete arguments are divided into simple and complex. A complex argument is one which from three or more premisses concludes what might have been concluded by successive steps in (W2.215) <> reasonings each of which is simple. Thus, a complex inference comes to the same thing in the end as a succession of simple inferences. (CP5.270) <> A complete, simple, and valid argument, or syllogism, is either apodictic or probable. An apodictic or deductive syllogism is one whose validity depends unconditionally upon the relation of the fact inferred to the facts posited in the premisses. A syllogism whose validity should depend not merely upon its premisses, but upon the existence of some other knowledge, would be impossible; for either this other knowledge would be posited, in which case it would be a part of the premisses, or it would be implicitly assumed, in which case the inference would be incomplete. But a syllogism whose validity depends partly upon the non-existence of some other knowledge, is a probable syllogism. ( In order to facilitate a reading of the basis for existential graphs, I have placed a number in brackets for each of the nine “simple” “incomplete” trichotomistic terms that are composed into the assertions in the sentences below.) : My assertion is that syllogisms about the graphic connections among > " the fragments of the sin-sign in the Rhematic Indexical Legi-sign in the > formal logic of the species of sin-signs.).” (2) > may require a substantial numbers of mathematical calculations to connect the measurements determining the icons (4) to the rhema.(7) Of course, these numerous calculations would require knowledge of the chemical table of elements and numerous facts that are part of the epistemology and ontology of the chemical sciences.(quali-signs (1)) The term “index” (5) in the trichotomy can be construed as a collection of arithmetic mathematical operations associated with the atomic numbers as well lists of attributes of matter associated with the mathematical operations on thermodynamic parameters, such as the gas laws. These indices are necessary to inform the dicisigns(8) that are components of arguments(9) that generate the scientific symbols (6) expressed in the semantics of the legi-signs (3). In modern logical terms, the trichotomy forms a semantic base upon which rests the implicative structure of a family of facts that connect mathematical, physical and chemical facts of the vincula. In this regard, to 'transition out of mathematics’ infers, from the perception chemical signs, transitioning out of Peirce. Cheers Jerry > On Aug 15, 2021, at 12:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Jerry, list > > That's an interesting comparison. > > So- if the first view is "closely associated with the methodology of > mathematics."- then, doesn't this suggest, if we are following the strictures > of De Tienne, that we should be seeking to 'transition out of mathematics'!!! > Is this 'allowed' on this List? > > [and yes, I agree with you that we should preserve " the fragments of the > sin-sign in the Rhematic Indexical Legi-sign in the formal logic of the > species of sin-signs.)." > > Edwina > > > > On Sun 15/08/21 12:16 PM , Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com > sent: > > List: > >> On Aug 15, 2021, at 10:06 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca <>> wrote: >> >> Now - what is the point of the first view, other than a taxonomic focus on >> terms - and what is the point of the second view - which to me at least, >> seems to be to examine that 'general rule' as it articulates itself within >> the individual instantiations of the Real World’. > > A very simple and direct response can be given to this question from the > dictionary of CSP’s (unrelenting!) terminology. > > The second view differs from first in the sense of C P Snow’s two cultures > (1958). > > The first view is closely associated with the methodology of mathematics. > > The second view is nearly identical with the formal logic of the semiosis of > matter, as manifested in the connectivity (vincula) of fragments of matter > and the composition of atomic sentences into molecular sentences. (It is > necessary to preserve the fragments of the sin-sign in the Rhematic Indexical > Legi-sign in the formal logic of the species of skin-signs.). > > While I feel that most readers of this list would disagree with this gloss of > CSP’s intent, at least, this is one pragmatic and consistent interpretation > of the mindsets partially unconcealed by your (Edwina’s) excellent gloss and > subsequent hypothesis. > > Cheers > > Jerry > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
