List, I remind the thread opened by Phillys Chiasson, entitled "Another perspective." <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00036.html> In this thread, Gary Richmond wrote <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00038.htm> :
*"I had a similar experience teaching undergraduate students in critical thinking courses. I found that it doesn't take formal logic -- although a bit of commonsensism seems requisite -- and soon the simple, ordinary, naive observation of the phaneron (or whatever one cares to call it) reveals that qualities, interactions, and thought-signs are all that there is. One doesn't require the reduction thesis, or valency theory, or mathematical logic, or graph theory to see the trichotomic structure of the world." [emphasize mine]* John Sowa answers him <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00042.html>: Have you ever seen a diagram and understood its implications? Have you ever drawn a diagram to illustrate some point in your lectures? If you did either of these two activities, you were using and understanding a subset of graph theory. *But* *if you want to get beyond an eighth-grade education, doing a bit of studying helps a lot. *[emphasize mine] *I fully agree with this opinion. (RM) * Following Gary f intervene signaling another perspective <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00043.html> : *"For another perspective on the roles of mathematics and logic in phaneroscopic analysis, see Francesco Bellucci's 2015 paper at*: https://www.academia.edu/11664897/Peirce_on_Phaneroscopical_Analysis <https://www.academia.edu/11664897/Peirce_on_Phaneroscopical_Analysis>" Gary Richmond immediately declared his enthusiasm for this text and quoted several extracts <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00046.html>. *"Thank you for posting this excellent short paper by Bellucci, without doubt the best compact analysis I've read of "the roles of mathematics and logic in phaneroscopic analysis."* I replied to GR that I did not share his enthusiasm for this text. But it was an opinion. A real debate requires argumentation. So I took the time to make a critical analysis of Belluci's paper (attached file). It is part of a set of studies that I am making of the main texts available in the literature about the bases of phaneroscopy and the practices associated with them in the framework of the Sciences of Discovery. Although the text is short, I had to spend a lot of time on it. But it also allowed me to show that there has been a strong movement in the Peircean community for quite a long time in favor of an extreme minimization of mathematics or even its exclusion. It is explicitly admitted above by Gary Richmond. In addition, I could situate my mathematical modeling of Phaneroscopy and semiotics. Finally, two camps are emerging, as defined by the ethnologist Claude Lévy-Strauss, after his successful collaboration with the great mathematician André Weil: the "bricoleurs" and the "engineers." This collaboration is refused for reasons that belong to the sociology of research. They deserve a separate study. Best regards, Robert Marty Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
Critical analysis of Belluci's paper.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
