Tag Archives: Peirce

Re: Ontolog Forum • Alex Shkotin Dear Alex, You raised the following point: AS: One important usage of a sign is as an element of a language, especially a formal one, i.e. with a formal grammar. For context you cited … Continue reading →

Re: Ontolog Forum • Alex Shkotin Dear Alex, Thanks for the very apt segue from Jon Barwise — Modern mathematics might be described as the science of abstract objects, be they real numbers, functions, surfaces, algebraic structures or whatever.  Mathematical … Continue reading →

Re: Ontolog Forum • Paul Tyson Dear Paul, “How We Think” is a topic for the descriptive science of psychology, and its ways are legion beyond definitive or exhaustive description. “How We Ought To Think” if we wish to succeed … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Helmut Raulien Dear Helmut, It’s one of the occupational hazards of the classifying mind that one can start out consciously characterizing aspects of real situations and end up unwittingly thinking one’s gotten everything under the sun sorted … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • John Sowa • Auke van Breemen • Jon Awbrey • Gary Fuhrman Dear Gary, Auke van Breemen wrote: AvB: It seems to come down to:  never consider the textual production of a scientist only in itself, … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • Auke van Breemen AvB: It seems to come down to:  never consider the textual production of a scientist only in itself, but also look at the reality the text tries to explain. Dear Auke, Exactly! We … Continue reading →

Re: Peirce List • John Sowa Dear John, Thanks for the notice of Carolyn Eisele’s article — it’s always worth reading what she has to say.  We’ve had discussions of Peirce’s distinction between theorematic and corollarial reasoning before and I … Continue reading →