Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

context that truth an beauty are recognized > as values (something to be pursued, and end) that they can be fully > understood, hypothetically, as it were. > > John > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: September 28, 2014 6:05 AM > To:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stefan, Excuse me for asking a silly question: You wrote " . . . are unable to destinct their own dreams . . ." Can you use "distinct" as a verb ? Or did you mean "distinguish" ? With all the best. Sung > Ben, Gary, R., Gary F., > > i've got to start from the end of your post. You speak of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

were. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > *Sent:* September 28, 2014 6:05 AM > *To:* Stephen C. Rose > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural > Propositions, > > >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

r [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: September 28, 2014 6:05 AM To: Stephen C. Rose Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions, Stephen: You simply state: Beauty and truth are teleological terms I wonder why. Cheers Jerry On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:05 PM, S

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stephen: You simply state: > Beauty and truth are teleological terms I wonder why. Cheers Jerry On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > Beauty and truth are teleological terms and valuable as objectives that > continuity heads toward and fallibility clouds. > > @stephencrose >

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stefan, Gary R., Gary F., list, This post might need to have a paragraph moved up or down, but here goes. As to "opinion versus true opinion": Mostly I was expositing Peirce's views on truth (with which I generally agree). It's Peirce who often called truth the final _/opinion/_ that sufficie

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Beauty and truth are teleological terms and valuable as objectives that continuity heads toward and fallibility clouds. *@stephencrose * On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Stefan, all, > > I think that there's much to be said for your sugge

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stefan, all, I think that there's much to be said for your suggestion of our jettisoning 'truth' and replacing it with 'knowledge', at least in science. There are, I believe, strong hints of this notion in Peirce as well, for example, here: When our logic shall have paid its *devoirs* to Esthetic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stephen, in germany we have a saying " I am not more papal than the pope". There are times of loose thinking/speaking and there are times of strict thinking/speaking. When the setting is right people will understand you even if use the wrong words. Best Stefan Am 26.09.14 13:24, schrieb St

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stephen, I have often recommended the use of the term “pragmatic thinking” as a replacement for both those isms. Regards, Jon Sent from my iPad > On Sep 26, 2014, at 7:24 AM, "Stephen C. Rose" wrote: > > truth"? - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stefan Would it not be an act aiming toward truth and beauty to stop using the word pragmatism entirely when seeking to articulate CP's thought and instead say pragmaticism even if in doing so one has to explain why? *@stephencrose * On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:52

Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Ben, Garys, list, seems i took some things down the wrong pipe (see my post to Gary). There is not much in what you say that I'd disagree with. But there is still the truth-problem, but maybe this is just a problem of labeling. For me truth has no little errorbars, but i'm apodictic here lik

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stefan, Gary R., Gary F., list, I'm not sure how much there is in what you say that I'd disagree with. I'd point out that I wasn't attempting to describe social influences on research in real depth, but just to indicate that I believe that they exist and that I had given them at least a little

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Ben, Gary, R., Gary F., i've got to start from the end of your post. You speak of the society "rewarding diciplines" and this sheds a light on your idea of sociology in this discussion. Your sociology consists of conscious actors who reward, strive for power, wealth or status. This is more a r

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions, Gary F., Ben, List, yes, it is an extremist position. Ludwik Fleck in some of his texts about the Denkkollektive (thought collectives) comes close to this point. But his microbiological bench research maybe prevented him to fall prey to such solipcism

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Stefan, Gary F., list, I was indeed addressing the snakebite example, just not mentioning it by name. If two traditions, two people, two of anything, arrive at incompatible conclusions about snakebites, then at most one of their conclusions is true. That's what "incompatible conclusions" means

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

because he likes (or feels compelled) to polarize the issue. And Ben was responding in kind (appropriately, I think). gary f. *From:*sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] *Sent:* 21-Sep-14 5:41 PM *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natur

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

compelled) to polarize the issue. And Ben was responding in kind (appropriately, I think). gary f. From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] Sent: 21-Sep-14 5:41 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions, Dear Ben, Gary R

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Dear Ben, Gary R., Gary F., List wich social constructivists with some reputation do hold the position "that the objects or findings of inquiry are unreal and mere figments"? Schütz, Berger & Luckmann, Piaget, von Foerster, Latour, Bloor or Knorr-Cetina? Foucault, Mannheim or Fleck? I wonder..

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Ben, lists, A most excellent post, and one of the strongest arguments against constructivist epistemology that I've read, having the added virtue of being succinct. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University o

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,

Dear Stan, lists, The problem here is a bit as when Collier thought all the world was "in the head" - for where is that head? in the world? in another head? The same holds here: "the world will be constructed by each [tradition] via different models" - now, WHERE are those traditions? Seems to