o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o  (01)
JA = Jon Awbrey
JS = John Sowa  (02)
Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00348.html  (03)
To correct a reference in the above post, I should have written this:  (04)
| Here is the material on Peirce's angle that I wrote up
| for the Wikipedia article on pragmatic theories of truth,
| now forked over to the Centiare article on the same subject:
|
| http://www.centiare.com/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth#Peirce  (05) 
Re: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00355.html  (06)
JS: 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.  (07)
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?  (08)
JS: 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.  (09)
JS: 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.  (010)
JS: 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.  (011)
John,  (012)
I quoted Kant and Peirce in their own words, and I tried
to make my "compare and contrast" as accurate as I could.  (013)
Give me some time to review what I've written so far and
I'll try to see what sounds like an attack, but I do not
see that as my aim, for all sorts of reasons that I have
yet to explain.  (014)
In the meantime let this be our maxim:
Not to bury the correspondence theory
but to analyze it, terminable or else.  (015)
Jon Awbrey  (016)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
「iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
ontolog: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?JonAwbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o  (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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  (018)