Jon, (01)
I wholeheartedly endorse all of Peirce's statements in
your recent quotes. And I would point out that he does
not reject the correspondence theory of truth in any of
them. On the contrary, he shows how to strengthen it. (02)
JA> Can we really and truly dissociate the semantics of terms
> like "duration", "length", and "mass" from the epistemological
> stance of a particular frame of reference, or the operational
> resources of the apparatus that we use to measure them? (03)
Of course not. The semantics of those terms depends on the
details of the measurement process. But recognizing that
point does not invalidate the correspondence principle. (04)
I also agree that Peirce's semeiotic and the related issues
of pragmaticism constitute the best methodology ever proposed
for dealing with the epistemological issues, the correspondence
issues, and many other issues in an integrated way. (05)
Focus attention on epistemology and the methodology of doing
science by observation, experiment, measurement, and testing.
Show how Peirce's semeiotics can clarify those issues. But
don't get hung up on attacking the correspondence theory.
Peirce didn't attack it -- he changed the subject. (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)
|