Abstract
Peirce’s insistence that logic and mathematics are prior to, and independent of, the natural sciences faces serious objections. First, his claim that all knowledge is scientific seems to imply that any justification of the principles of scientific method presupposes the legitimacy of those principles and thus is circular. Second, his claim that truths of logic and mathematics hold independently of facts about the actual world seems hard to square with his insistence that they are established by observation using the experimental method. Finally, his view that logic and mathematics are sciences on the same epistemological footing as any other science seems at odds with his view that results in mathematics and logic are more secure than those of the natural sciences. I argue that Peirce’s answers to these objections rest on his theory of icons. If this is right, his theory of icons is central to his epistemology and issues in a view of mathematics and logic that is original and has been largely overlooked.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.