Dear Edwina, lists - The neo-Darwinist conception of evolution works nicely as an example, exactly because it is so stripped-down. Even a concept as naked as that refers to real universals - as Edwina writes, to "genes", and "natural selection".
F Den 18/01/2015 kl. 19.30 skrev Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> : Stan and Frederik: I think that you both are talking about different issues. It's not whether or not evolution is a 'real process', or even about the notion of 'realism' vs 'nominalism' (whether one uses the scholastic or non-scholastic definition of those two terms). I think Stan was referring to the very definition of 'what is evolution'. The neoDarwinians have a very simple (simplistic?) definition which rejects any notion of there being 'potentialities', 'probabilities' or 'possibilities' . There's the status quo genes; there's natural selection; and that's it. Edwina
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
