Jon,
I would tend to strongly agree with what you've written. However, this
passage seems to me to need a bit of 'unpacking' to be entirely clear.
JAS: The necessity of collateral experience/observation for any sign to be
understood is one of Peirce's most notable insights. It leads to the
Gary, List:
Indeed, as I have said before, usefulness is in the eye of the beholder;
and as Peirce himself said, "True science is distinctively the study of
useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of
scientific men" (CP 1.76, c. 1896). Nobody should disparage one
List, John, Edwina, Jon,
How differently some other distinguished scholars see this matter of the
'usefulness' of Peirce's semeiotic project than John Sowa appears to.
Consider this passage near the conclusion of a paper by Nathan Houser in a
festschrift for Lucia Santaella published just last
Edwina, List,
I am not denying the fact that interpretants, as defined by Peirce, exist, and
I am not denying that Peirce's 3-way distinction is good.
But you said that you had not studied the kinds of details that the linguists
observe and specify.
My claim is that any theory that does not
John, list
I continue to either misunderstand or object - I don’t know which term I
should use - to your rejection of the role of the Interpretants. I simply don’t
see how the semiosic process can function - and it IS a function - without the
necessary role of the Interpretants. How can you
Edwina, List,
As a logician and mathematician, Peirce understood the methods of precise
reasoning in lengthy deductions. But as a linguist and engineer, he also
understood the issues of continuity or synechism.
In ordinary language, every word has a broad range of meanings. The senses
