Yes, I do like that appendage and hadn't read it. Thanks. I've been accused of Hegelianism more than once, the most stark in a conversation about how to best model the diffusion of innovation, wherein I played the Adversary to an assumption that the concepts of self-organization in physics extend to social systems. But I'm pretty sure I reject (what I infer from) the phrase "self-correcting". I would prefer "sticks close to something" or "fidelity", which may mean make it *sound* like I'm more Piercian than Hegelian. But the truth is I'm agnostic through and through.
I'm a real-life Towlie: https://youtu.be/1Y_7P9Ce9Uc On 7/9/20 2:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I thought Glen might like this: > > This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological > fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a > prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, /every/ intellectual > position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce > and Hegel there is /no/ final, fixed intellectual position free from any > potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long > run self-correcting. > > It’s from > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html > > Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the > semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk. > -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
