BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }1]
JAS- This is what I was responding to: You wrote:
"As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any deductive
argumentation--the conclusion is only as strong as the premisses. If
one premiss is false, then the c
Edwina, List:
ET: My understanding of science is that its axioms are based on objective
empirical evidence; repeatable observations; quantitative measurements and
fallibility.
Then your definition of "science" is narrower than Peirce's.
ET: Your comments referred only to the premises being tr
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }My
comments below
On Tue 21/05/19 3:27 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, Helmut, List:
1] ET: Science requires empirical evidence ...
JAS: The truth of this statement depends on how we define
"empiri
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Please see my responses below
On Tue 21/05/19 3:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
1] ET: I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic
have anything to do with bridging the chasm
Supplement: I put an "other" in my second paragraph. Individual signs cannot communicate using quantum entanglement. But perhaps the universe can use quantum entanglement for communication in itself, so may have an event horizon as big as itself..
Edwina, list,
I agree. I too think, th
Edwina, list,
I agree. I too think, that a sign is an action, an event, and is therefore limited by its event horizon. Though a part of any sign is due to universal laws, but that does not connect all signs to one (not completely, because only a part of the sign is due to universal laws like e
Edwina, Helmut, List:
ET: Science requires empirical evidence ...
The truth of this statement depends on how we define "empirical." In the
popular sense, only the Special Sciences require empirical evidence.
According to Peirce, philosophy--including both Logic as Semeiotic and
Metaphysics--re
Edwina, List:
ET: I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have
anything to do with bridging the chasm between religion and science. They
have no scientific content whatsoever.
Peirce held that both Logic as Semeiotic and Metaphysics are *sciences*, so
their content is *scient
Helmut
Science requires empirical evidence - and discussions about 'God'
rarely provide that. Logic can only show us that our beliefs are
logical but can't provide any proof of their pragmatic reality.
I consider that a major problem in discussion of 'the sign' is the
Edwina, All,
I think there is (and will be) a premiss missing: Scale-invariance / connectedness / noncontingency. A forest consisting of different (nonconnected) trees is not a tree, it is not scale-invariant. But there may be a forest in which the trees are connected by their roots, which mak
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I think we have to be very cautious here. I don't think that these
discussions on religion and logic have anything to do with bridging
the chasm between religion and science. They have no scientific
c
Edwina, List:
1. Please reread what you quoted from CP 5.484 very carefully. It states
that *semeiosis *is "an action or influence" that involves *three
*subjects, one of
which is a *Sign*. Hence the word "Sign" does not denote the *action*, but
one of the three *subjects *involved in that acti
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] I disagree with your assertion that Peirce never said that the
triad is a sign. See.. "by 'semiosis' I mean, on the contrary, an
action or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three
subj
Edwina, List:
ET: All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises are
true. Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats?
No, and why not? Because the conclusion *does not* follow necessarily from
the premisses; the *form *of the argumentation is *invalid*. The same is
tr
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
The problem I have with this claim is that it is invalid.
JAS: As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any
deductive argumentation--the conclusion is only as strong as the
premisses.
15 matches
Mail list logo
