Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

James, list, Sorry, quick correction: Peirce does not discuss the relative importance of characters in "The Doctrine of Chances" (the third paper in the series), but in "The Order of Nature" (the fifth paper in the series). -- Franklin On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

James, Well, looking it up, I can't find serendipidous, but I found serendipitous, which is defined as "occurring or discovered by chance in a happy or beneficial way", which is what I noted in my last post. If you think that a scientific strategy that occurs or is discovered by chance in a happy

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

Franklin, Thanks for the reply. First principles that we have to "work through a variety of considerations to reach" are not the kind of first principles Peirce is rejecting - although, like you, I don't pretend to speak with much authority on how to accurately characterize Aristotle's actual

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

Franklin, List: On Nov 25, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > I myself am interested in the idea of developing strategies for inducing > better abductions, but I haven't found Peirce so interested. For him, it > seems that an abductive inference is simply uncontrolled, and we can only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

James, list, James, welcome to the list. James wrote: Peirce's non-foundationalism is expressed in his rejection of Cartesian and > Aristotelian First Principles I should probably understand this point better, but I am wondering whether this point might be further explained. In the case of Car

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

s an empirically oriented Platonist. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier *From:*Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, 24 November 2015 6:23 PM *To:* Peirce List *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific On Nov 24, 2015,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 11:28 AM, John Collier wrote: > > I don’t think that all rationalists were foundationalists. Descartes perhaps, > but I don’t think Leibniz or Spinoza were. Empiricists up to Reid were > foundationalists, and Mill was not. I think it is an independent issue. <> I think Sp

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

November 2015 6:23 PM To: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:03 AM, John Collier mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: I disagree with the sharp division between empiricists and rationalists as Jon draws it. He quotes: Ratio

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:03 AM, John Collier wrote: > > I disagree with the sharp division between empiricists and rationalists as > Jon draws it. He quotes: >> Rationalism: A method, or very broadly, a theory of philosophy, in which the >> criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

> On Nov 22, 2015, at 7:25 PM, Jon Awbrey > wrote: > I'm sure we all learned in one place or another that Locke, Berkeley, and Hume > belonged to a group called “The Empiricists” while Descartes, Spinoza, and > Leibniz > belonged to a group called “The Rationalists”, wher