Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

2016-07-12 Thread sb
Gary, John, Olga, what is this thing "science" you are talking about? Do you mean the sociological phenomen or the idea of science? I think these two are a bit mixed up in your exchange. When i look at science as a sociological phenomenen i must say i have seen much hedonism, betrayal, lying, i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

2016-07-12 Thread Jerry Rhee
Hi sb, all; one, two, three...*pathos*, ethos, *logos*... Best, Jerry R On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:22 PM, sb wrote: > Gary, John, Olga, > > what is this thing "science" you are talking about? Do you mean the > sociological phenomen or the idea of science? I think these two are a bit > mixed up

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

2016-07-12 Thread Helmut Raulien
Jerry, list, very interesting essay. The second prejudice, to call it a prejudice, I think, is also known as tychism, the theory, that natural laws are due to habit-taking. Habits, I think, reqire a memory, and memory is data stored in a material form. This material form is (examples): DNA for th

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

2016-07-12 Thread Jerry Rhee
Hi Helmut, list: one, two, three...tychism, ananchism, agapism...chance, law, habit-taking. Therefore, tychism is not what you say it is because it is a First. Still, chance plays a major part in knowledge making. Please have a read of Houser's essay, "Peirce's Contrite Fallibilism". It helps