http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy
"This", Bill, is a demonstrative pronoun and a deictic. The semantics is horribly complicated...
Knowing how you crave this stuff, David, can we assume you are responsible for one or more of those wiki pieces?
:)
DH: "'This,' Bill, is a demonstrative pronoun and a deictic. The semantics is horribly complicated..."
Thanks!!
"thanks" - now THERE'S a complex remark. Grammatically, it's an interjection - but should we take it as being semantically a reduced proposition ("Bill Overcamp thanks David Hirst")?
DH: "should we take it as being sematically a reduced proposition ("Bill Overcamp thanks David Hirst")?"
Given the proposition -- BO thanks DH -- we restate the relevant interrogatives:
I) Does the proposition say what it means? ~ i.e., is 'Thanks' a valid sign for the content expressed by the stated proposition?
II) Does the proposition mean what it says? ~ i.e., Does it validly sign for 'Thanks' in the given context?
Peircean methodology is properly conceived as a two-part series of two-part reality-testings (of relevance at Secondness and significance at Thirdness). What follows is thus an example of the full methodology as applied to David's question.
I) The following shows Peircean three-step methodology and the normative completing Fourthness
1) (Firstness ~ Sign) = Presentamen of Thanks
2) (Secondness ~ Object) = Actuality of interjection as responce of BO to statement of DH
3) (Thirdness ~ Interpretant) = Confirmation that 'Thanks' logically signs as a reduction of 2nd-ness
4) (Fourthness ~ Syllogistic Deduction) = Suitable referent of reduction: BO thanks DH
II) Three-step plus completing Fourthness, Part II
1) (Firstness ~ Sign) = Presentamen of BO thanks DH
2) (Secondness ~ Object) = Actuality of expression of appreciation
3) (Thirdness ~ Interpretant) = Confirmation of a general term suitable as reduction to context of motive, intent and/or quality of referent
4) (Fourthness ~ Syllogistic Deduction) = Suitable sign of reduction: 'Thanks'
Everything that scholars have miscomprehended is implied and indirectly exemplified in this example. Note also the implication that the syllogism is likewise normatively conceived as a four-part logic, and the implied reason why Perice missed it (and the further implication as to his definition of 'relatedness').
As per an earlier thread: DH violated the thread in raising this issue over this proposition and should have, in all technical precision and propriety, taken the occasion to introduce a new thread to which my reply would have been addressed, something along the lines of: "When is 'Thanks' an interjective reduction of a propositional "x thanks Y'?"
Of course, the problem resides, in part, in human nature, which asks for immediacy and convenience. But to many, allowing the convenience of conversation in written media constitutes something akin to "off-topic". If we take this literally, my admonition is correctly stated. Even Peirce would be tempted to agree.
CSH
ASJ: "Have a nice nightmare in 2010!..."
In India they speak of Karma. Here we say, what goes around, comes around...
Our Anthony is one of those folks who believes philosophy is about "ideas"... the twenty-first century dislike of naturalism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his face in a mirror... and the twenty-first century dislike of philosophy is the rage of Caliban realising that he IS the mirror.
i wonder since when the debate on the demarcation of science from pseudoscience moved on from popper and kuhn and reached wikipedia as the source of ultimate knowledge.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy