[lit-ideas] Re: Peirceiana

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 20:50:19 -0400

Ritchie was mentioning Peirce.

In a message dated 7/30/2015 3:38:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"[...] is as mistaken as the idea that Popper's view of knowledge as
conjectural can be dismissed (by a verbal stipulation that "knowledge" must
something more than merely conjectural) because JTB-theory holds a
monopoly over the meaning of "knowledge". This foolish kind of dismissal of
Popper's theory of knowledge is either an analytic dogma which fails to
any substantive facts about knowledge or it is a substantive claim which
fails to account for science (as science is "knowledge" that cannot adequately
be explained as JTB)."

Point taken. On top of that, however, Popper was perhaps vague in saying
'sooner': he came across Peirce when he did come across Peirce. It would be
good to review further cross-references between these two great thinkers of
nineteenth- and twentieth-centuries philosophy.



McEvoy: "I think somewhere Popper expresses his wish that he had come
across Pierce sooner." Possible implicatures:

i. "It would have saved me a lot of time."

ii. I could have credited all those ideas to him, rather than to myself."

iii. Other.

iv. I would have been invited to lecture at America's alleged most
prestigious university: Harvard [and I say 'allegedly', because the most
prestigious university is by definition one's alma mater!]

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: