Ingvar and Jon, (01)
I agree that it's important to distinguish both aspects
and be conscious of which issue is being addressed in
any particular sentence (or paragraph or word). (02)
> Don't mix semantic questions such as 'what is the
> correspondence theory of truth saying?' with epistemological
> questions such as 'how do we know that a certain
> statement is true?'. (03)
On the other hand, Peirce treated both areas in a more
integrated way. In fact, one major advantage of the
philosophy of science is that it addresses both aspects
together. However, Peirce addressed *every* aspect of
cognition for *every* application -- scientific or
every day -- in his semiotics. That approach cuts through
and across many traditional questions that have been
compartmentalized by different -ologies. Peirce certainly
distinguished them when it was necessary to distinguish
them, but he didn't regard the party lines as barriers
to research. (04)
Short answer: I sympathize with both of you. But my
orientation toward Peirce makes me impatient with the
traditional ways of compartmentalizing the issues. (05)
(However, I am willing to talk along the lines of
the old-fashioned -ologies in order to facilitate
the translations to a Peircean style of semiotics.) (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|