Sally & All,
As I recall, one of Joe's abiding concerns was the idea that science
refers to an objective world of real things, perhaps real "possibles",
as opposed to any kind of radical constructivism, Sophistic relativism,
or so-called "consensual theory of truth". So say we all, I'm guessing.
However much we construct or invent our humanly erratic signs of reality,
the reality itself is "independent" of our vagaries and our vicissitudes.
That would be just my guess at this point.
Jon
Sally Ness wrote:
Jon, List,
Thanks much for this response.
With regard to the first question, since it is most likely not a dualism
between discovery and invention that JR had in mind, what would be the
alternative. He wouldn't have italicized "discovery" had he not meant
to contrast it with something else. Or, perhaps, there is a better way
to read this passage?
With regard to the second question, the logic/rhetoric distinction you
mention would seem to fit. Thanks for bringing this out.
Sally
--
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To
remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the
line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the
list, send it to [email protected]
