2 ms·

As HN’s self-described #1 Peirce fan, the second I saw the title I knew who this was about. The reason most of us have never heard of Peirce was the unflagging

by User23 5y ago

As HN’s self-described #1 Peirce fan, the second I saw the title I knew who this was about. The reason most of us have never heard of Peirce was the unflagging devotion of his childhood “friend” Simon Newcomb to utterly destroying his legacy out of envy and spite. Not only was Peirce a genius logician who discovered the universal and existential quantifiers independent of Frege, he also formalized pragmatism and semiotic. Edit: Oh and I forgot abductive reasoning[1], which is shockingly unknown given its utility. I first learned of it from an absurdly smart Raytheon physicist many years ago. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

newbamboo 5y ago
Can you point me to references to help me learn about Peirce the phenomenologist? As in “modern development of phenomenology (independently of and arguably superior to Edmund Husserl)”
- User23 5y ago
  I haven't participated in academic philosophy for a very long time, so apologies if this isn't what you're looking for. On a New List of Categories[1] is his work that I'm most familiar with that I imagine might be considered phenomenology. Have a look and if you like please let me know if it's along the lines you're looking for or not and if you have the time, why. Edit: Some of the language is archaic, so as someone who is merely curious and of a pragmatic bent, I had to use care reading it. For example it was the first time I ever saw the word "prescision," which means the withdrawal of attention. [1] https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-main.htm https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl...
specialist 5y ago
A boss/friend and I locked horns on pretty much everything. He could see that my designs and efforts were good. But because I couldn't fully explain how I attained them, to his satisfaction, my work was somehow invalid. Years later, he grudgingly acknowledged, by way of an olive branch, that my abductive reasoning was also a valid strategy. And that'd he'd just let it me do my thing. (Even more years later, he had recreated one of my products, and wanted me to know, after trying a lot of alternatives, my design proved best.) I was actually grateful for this outcome. My intuition and crazy ideas have been a source of conflict with most other geeks my entire career. I get along great with other types of nerds, like marketing and graphic designers. I don't know if deductive reasoners can get along with abductive. But I strongly believe most efforts benefit from a mixed strategy. Deductives are great maximizers. Abductives are great for busting out of local maximums. Heh. It just now occurs to me we have a common enemy: the inductives. The purveyors of "well actually" pendantry, FUD, and other forms of bureaucratic sabotage. We'd all be happier if inductives stuck to QA/Test.

by User23 5y ago

newbamboo 5y ago

Can you point me to references to help me learn about Peirce the phenomenologist? As in “modern development of phenomenology (independently of and arguably superior to Edmund Husserl)”

User23 5y ago
I haven't participated in academic philosophy for a very long time, so apologies if this isn't what you're looking for. On a New List of Categories[1] is his work that I'm most familiar with that I imagine might be considered phenomenology. Have a look and if you like please let me know if it's along the lines you're looking for or not and if you have the time, why. Edit: Some of the language is archaic, so as someone who is merely curious and of a pragmatic bent, I had to use care reading it. For example it was the first time I ever saw the word "prescision," which means the withdrawal of attention. [1] https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-main.htm https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl...

specialist 5y ago

A boss/friend and I locked horns on pretty much everything. He could see that my designs and efforts were good. But because I couldn't fully explain how I attained them, to his satisfaction, my work was somehow invalid. Years later, he grudgingly acknowledged, by way of an olive branch, that my abductive reasoning was also a valid strategy. And that'd he'd just let it me do my thing. (Even more years later, he had recreated one of my products, and wanted me to know, after trying a lot of alternatives, my design proved best.) I was actually grateful for this outcome. My intuition and crazy ideas have been a source of conflict with most other geeks my entire career. I get along great with other types of nerds, like marketing and graphic designers. I don't know if deductive reasoners can get along with abductive. But I strongly believe most efforts benefit from a mixed strategy. Deductives are great maximizers. Abductives are great for busting out of local maximums. Heh. It just now occurs to me we have a common enemy: the inductives. The purveyors of "well actually" pendantry, FUD, and other forms of bureaucratic sabotage. We'd all be happier if inductives stuck to QA/Test.