Mike, List: I generally agree with your post as a whole but would like to highlight this summary remark in particular.
MB: Determinism and reductionism continue (in my opinion) to unduly lock science into inquisitive dead ends. Peirce's alternatives of tychism and synechism, as well as objective idealism instead of materialism, could (and should) serve as the basis for a different and hopefully more fruitful approach. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 5:07 PM Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Edwina, List, > > Your points are all well taken. However, I prefer to look at your > rhetorical question in the inverse. > > Our science writ large has been stuck in some very telling ways. The > standard model of particle physics has been stymied and has not overcome > many perplexing questions for more than 50 years. The standard model of > cosmology has been stuck for 30 years since we learned of the universe's > increasing expansion. Gravity defies incorporation into a theory of > everything. Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinism have been unable to > describe altruism and kin selection. Neither account for the 'finious' or > teleological aspects as well. Epigenetics suggest much more is at work than > conventional genetic theory. Determinism and reductionism continue (in my > opinion) to unduly lock science into inquisitive dead ends. > > The broad framework of Peirce's universal categories and the process of > semiosis offer, I think both of us believe, more fecund bases for > conducting future science than what is being pursued at present. While it > is true that Peirce's work preceded the scientific advances of the early > 20th century, they foreshadowed all of them. Furthermore, there are > legitimate theories across all current scientific disciplines that can be > seen as expressions of these Peircean insights, often without the explicit > knowledge of their proponents about possible connections to Peirce. > > So, to me, the pity is not so much that Peirce was in advance of later > valid science but that current science is largely ignorant of Peirce. As > you know this has been a passion of mine. What is needed is a re-expression > of many current theories consistent with a Peircean interpretation. I think > (know) we will see such an approach will help filter amongst competing > alternate theories in these areas of open scientific question, which in > combination will also reify Peirce's impressive instincts. Getting more > researchers to embrace Peirce in their own work will break some of these > logjams, and bring additional minds to bear to help further elucidate > Peirce's insights. > > We have sufficient knowledge at hand to move this enterprise forward. > > My Sunday musings, Mike > > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > 319.621.5225http://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __________________________________________ > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
