Auke,
The point I was trying make: Either/Or debates are a waste
of time. There is an open-ended number of different ways of perceiving,
thinking, talking, reasoning, and acting. In the abstract, there is no
reason to debate whether method M175 is better or worse than method
M837926.
AB> I
List,
Jerry Chandler's contribution today at 2.54 hours in "To put an end" is
an ideal example of what you three (and I) are talking about; focus is
merely post by post, and all members are (I assume) pitching in to help
all the other members at each instant. Jerry cited chemistry.
(Linguis
John and Auke
I think Auke has made a key comment - which is not merely the method
of discussion and analysis, but the focus. As he noted, there can be
two areas to focus on:
Area 1] Peirce's text can be read as inspiration for semiotic
research. In this case semiosis
John,
I agree with your broadening up the seeming dichotomy to an open ended
diversity. But I suggest to go all the way; also within a science we find
different angles on the same subjectmatter. Semiotics not being excluded.
But, I think there is a second current to be aware of in our discussi
Robert and Auke,
I agree with the points you made. But I believe that a
good way to put an end to the "false debate" is to broaden the
dichotomy to an open-ended diversity. Every branch of the sciences (i.e.,
every branch in Peirce's 1903 classification) has methods that are
specialized for the
