Scientific philosophy

The Ten Assumptions of Science presents the logically coherent set of assumptions destined to define 21st century scientific philosophy. Glenn Borchardt first explains why assumptions and not absolutes are necessary for scientific thinking. By exploring the opposition between deterministic and indeterministic views, he clearly shows how critical choices among underlying assumptions either clarify or muddle scientific analysis.
He shows how customary mixtures of deterministic and indeterministic assumptions are responsible for the current confusion in modern physics. According to Dr. Borchardt, only rare physicists and philosophers have an inkling of the nature of time, space, energy, and matter. The need for reassessing our fundamental assumptions is indicated by the present sorry state of cosmology. Otherwise intelligent scientists promulgate the idea that the universe expanded from a tiny "singularity" smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. At the very least, adherence to Borchardt’s assumptions will contribute to the rejection of the "Big Bang Theory," which has surpassed the flat Earth theory as the greatest embarrassment to serious thinkers everywhere.

Although the book makes an excellent supplement to college courses in scientific philosophy, it is an astounding eye-opener for the educated reader with an interest in science and philosophy.

Abstract: This essay argues that 1- Third World philosophical apprenticeship involves two opposites; enslavement if associated with imitation or an intelligence exploration that seeks to learn from the other’s achievements for the sake of surpassing or catching up with it. 2- There are deep divergences in the direction of 20th century philosophy between a Franco-German marriage and an Anglo-German one. The former dominated the Arab world due to the congeniality of the European left, the higher costs of studying humanities in Anglophone countries, and the literary leanings of the Arabs. 3- This Continental domination produced harmful results seen in the spread of seven claims promoting "the death of philosophy", abandoning scientific research, and giving up on development. 4- Focusing the funding of Arab students in the west on languages and literatures exacerbated the problem, in that taking a philosophical look at the galaxy of modernization became confined to the lens of “literary criticism.” 5- Hence, Continental Philosophy became an obstacle to modernization in the Arab world and a subject of justifiable mockery by traditional readers matriculated in Arab Islamic scholasticism. 6- After doing justice to many German and French scientists, social-scientists, and orientalists, who follow the research traditions of the enlightenment and modernity, the essay emphasizes that Anglophone specialists in philosophy avoid works in postmodern philosophy because it violates philosophical requirements, e.g., logical coherence, empirical support, and theory construction. 7- Finally, a comprehensive philosophical system exists in the Anglophone philosophies, translated into Arabic, and surpasses Continental ones. In this system, “the Tree of Philosophy” comprises “ten integral branches”. 8- Accordingly, philosophy is defined as a deep reflection on clear, consistent, and verifiable meanings, subject to methodological revision, and seeking beauty and good in the context of interaction with local and global cultures in order to advance social prosperity and justice. 9- Studying the listed translated works of these philosophies can enable Arab readers to explore the “nervous system” of modernization and development.

Bu bildirinin amacı, bir bilimsel felsefeci olarak Prof. Dr. Yaman Örs’ün etik
ve biyoetik konularına yaklaşımının incelenmesidir. Mantıkçı pozitivist, mantıkçı empirisist ve Hans Reichenbach’ın savunduğu anlamda bir bilimsel felsefecinin bakış açısından denebilir ki felsefe, bilim kadar (az ya da çok) doğrudan ve net bir biçimde bize içinde yaşadığımız dünyayı açıklayamaz. Yaman Örs’ün yöntembilgisel yaklaşımında felsefe, önermelerin, görüşlerin, değer yargılarının mantıksal-anlambilgisel ve eleştirel bir süzgeçten geçirildiği bir üst etkinlik konumundadır. Bu yöntembilgisel (metodolojik) yaklaşımı anlamadan, onun etik ve etiğin uygulamalı alt dalları olan biyoetik ve tıp etiği alanlarındaki tutum ve yaklaşımını anlamak da zor olacaktır; çünkü bir felsefecinin
felsefi görüşlerinin, onun etiğe olan bakış açısını da etkileyeceği bilinen bir gerçektir. Dolayısıyla, bu bildiride önce onun felsefi yaklaşımına ana hatlarıyla değinmek yerinde olacaktır. Sonrasında bu yaklaşımın, onun Etik konularına yaklaşımını nasıl etkilediği üzerinde durulacaktır. Son olarak da, görünüşe göre ilk kez Yaman Örs tarafından düşünülüp, ortaya konan “felsefenin etiği”, “felsefe yapmanın etiği” ve “felsefecilerin etiği” terimleri ele alınıp, bunların taşıdıkları anlamlar tartışılacaktır.

Alpınar, Z. (2012). “Bir Bilimsel Felsefeci Olarak Yaman Örs’ün Etik ve Biyoetik’e Yaklaşımı” (A Scientific Philosopher’s Approach to Ethics and Bioethics). Y. I. Ülman, S. V. Genç (eds.), Biyoetik Araştırmaları, (Bioethics Studies). Türkiye Biyoetik Derneği Yayın No. XVI, ISBN: 978-975-7041-07-8, Istanbul, 101–08.

Resumen La filosofía científica es filosofía informada por la ciencia, que usa herramientas exactas como la lógica y la matemática, y proporciona a la actividad científica de un marco donde dirimir las cuestiones más generales sobre la naturaleza, el lenguaje que usamos para describirla, y el conocimiento que de ella obtenemos. Muchas teorías de la filosofía científica pueden ser contrastadas y evaluadas utilizando evidencia científica. En este artículo me concentro en caracterizar a la filosofía científica y en discutir los límites de la ciencia. AbstRAct Scientific philosophy is philosophy informed by science, which uses exact tools such as logic and mathematics, and provides a scientific activity of a framework where to settle the most general questions about nature, the language we use to describe it, and knowledge We get from her. Many theories of scientific philosophy can be contrasted and evaluated using scientific evidence. In this paper I focus on scientific philosophy and the analysis of the limits of science.

ÖZET Bu çalışmada, bilim felsefesi bağlamında neo-pozitivist ve bilimsel-felsefe anlayışlarının sınırlandırma ayracı anlayışları 19. yüzyıl sonları ve özellikle 20. yüzyıl başındaki kökenlerinde incelenecektir. İki bilgi kuramı arasında açığa çıkan benzerlikler ve farklar post-pozitivizmin temel savlarının açığa çıkışı ışığında değerlendirilecektir. Modellerin güçlü ve zayıf yönleri sosyal bilimlerin olanağı sorunu da göz önünde tutularak incelenirken aynı zamanda güncellikleri tartışılacaktır. Bu yolla, kuramların projeksiyonlarının günümüzün post-pozitivist sosyal bilimler

The absurdities in current physics and cosmology are founded on indeterministic presuppositions uncovered in this review. Once subconsciously held presuppositions are stated, they become assumptions, objects amenable to study. Each indeterministic assumption has its deterministic opposite. To obtain a logically coherent set of fundamental assumptions, one must include generalized infinity, which is resisted vehemently by the present culture. Nonetheless, the ten deterministic assumptions are: 1. MATERIALISM: The external world exists after the observer does not. 2. CAUSALITY: All effects have an infinite number of material causes. 3. UNCERTAINTY: It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything. 4. INSEPARABILITY: Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion. 5. CONSERVATION: Matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed. 6. COMPLEMENTARITY: All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things. 7. IRREVERSIBILITY: All processes are irreversible. 8. INFINITY: The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions. 9. RELATIVISM: All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things. 10. INTERCONNECTION: All things are interconnected, that is, between any two objects exist other objects that transmit matter and motion. Among the primary conclusions: time is motion, light is motion, the universe is Euclidean, there is a dynamic ether, gravitation is a push, and the "Big Bang Theory" must be replaced by the infinite universe theory.

Bilim felsefesinin ya da daha genel olarak bilim üzerine yürütülen düşüncenin güncel ilgi alanları ve bilime karşı tavrı incelenecek olursa, karşımıza öncelikli olarak, popüler adlandırmasıyla post-modern düşüncenin eleştirel tavrı çıkmaktadır. Bu tavır iki boyut içermektedir. Bunlardan ilki, klasik anlamıyla bilim felsefesinin Popper'a kadar olan dönemde bilimi 'yanlış' anladığı, onu idealleştirdiği ve hatta normatif bir yapıya bürünerek neyin bilim olduğu konusunda hüküm verecek otoriter konuma yükseldiği eleştirisine dayanmaktadır. Post-modern eleştirinin ikinci boyutu ise daha kökenseldir. Buna göre, çağımızın yaşadığı temel problemlerin doğrudan ya da dolaylı nedeni Batılı anlamda bilimsel düşüncenin 'indirgemeci' niteliğidir. Bu iki boyut, temelde şu karşıt-tezleri 1 üretir:

The inevitable rejection of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) will lead to a more enlightened and more logical theory, but what will it be? The BBT will be replaced by the Infinite Universe Theory (IUT). It will produce the greatest revolution in science since Copernicus. A change of this magnitude will not come easily, probably not for decades, but it will come. The outlines of IUT can be seen by examining the logical defects of the BBT. A side-by-side comparison of the two theories not only shows the logical superiority of IUT, but it points the way to fertile fields of research and experimentation while rejecting still others. Among the predictions of IUT: time is motion; there is an ether; light is wave motion; the galactic redshift is due primarily to absorption; gravity involves a push, not a pull; there is a complement to the Second Law of Thermodynamics; light bending near massive bodies is refraction due to a dense etherosphere; galactic ages will not correlate with distance from Earth; the universe is Euclidean and not expanding; empty space and solid matter are ideas, not reality; matter has only three dimensions. Among the illegitimate pursuits: cosmogony, non-Euclidean mathematics; unification of physics via a single equation; objectification of time; and energy viewed as matterless motion. Welcome to the infinite universe!

Brentano's position in the history of philosophy is often illustrated by the long list of important philosophers who have studied with him. Yet, the relations between Brentano and his students were not always without friction. In the present article I argue that Brentano's students were most attracted by his conception of a scientific philosophy, which promised to leave the received tradition (German Idealism) behind and to mark the beginning of a new period in the history of philosophy-a project they were happy to be part of. Brentano's work remained in an important sense fragmentary, however, and could, thus, not provide the inner unity that would have been essential for forming a compact school or a unified philosophical movement.

A single philosophical error on Einstein's part has retarded physics and cosmology for over a century. The error is simply this: the objectification of motion. Classical mechanics assumed that the universe presents us with two fundamental phenomena: matter and the motion of matter. Matter exists; motion occurs. Matter, that is, anything in existence, has xyz dimensions and location. Motion is not-part‖ of the universe; it is what those parts do. In objectifying motion, Einstein assumed instead that motion had material properties. Like Maxwell, he started out with the assumption that light was a particle instead of wave motion in a sea of particles. This was an objectification similar to the theory that heat actually was a-caloric fluid,‖ instead of the vibratory motion of atoms. As shown in this paper, this one error invalidates the Special and General Theories of Relativity. The attractiveness of those theories is dependent more upon the popularity of indeterministic, unscientific philosophy than upon the validity of the data offered in support. Examined in detail, the oft-cited-proofs‖ of rela-tivity, such as the Eddington solar eclipse observations and the Hafele-Keating flight of clocks around Earth fail to prove anything. The data were so poor that their interpretation as supportive is an embarrassment to science.

There was no Big Bang. See:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

“Science, scientism, and never-ending myths about the scientistic stance.”

Metascience, book review

Ridder, Jeroen de; Peels, Rik; Woudenberg, René van (eds.),
Scientism: Prospects and Problems,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018, 320 pp., $58.43 HB

La critica dello 'scientismo' nel corso del '900 non può intendersi appieno se non inquadrandola nel contesto dei due fattori la cui congiunzione, sulla scia dell'affermazione {teorica e pratica) della scienza, ha più di tutto influenzato lo statuto disciplinare della filosofia nel corso dello stesso secolo: l'emergere, come autonomo campo di ricerca, dell'epistemologia della scienza e l'affermazione della logica formale. Benché ciascuna di queste nuove articolazioni della riflessione abbia un suo proprio campo specifico, tuttavia è stata la loro crescente importanza e il loro integrarsi a mettere in discussione sia l'esistenza di un oggetto proprio della filosofia, sia la sua possibilità di ancora praticare una riflessione dotata di una propria specifica metodologia d'indagine; sino al punto di esser messa in discussione la sua stessa esistenza.

The physical cause of gravitation is simple: the collision of one thing with another. Here I propose that the unseen particles involved in these collisions provide the acceleration that drives gravitation. We do not know exactly what these particles are, but it is clear they must be decelerated in the process. Here I assume they are “aether” particles, as distinguished from the anathematic fixed “ether” particles nullified by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. Having been decelerated, aether particles become lethargic, tending to hang around whatever baryonic matter was involved in the collision. Like the nitrogen in Earth’s atmosphere, these aether particles are entrained, attached to Earth as a far-reaching “dark matter” halo. They provide the physical reason for interpretations of gravity calling for “curved space.” At low altitudes this entrained “aetherosphere” allows little of the “ether wind” that Michelson and Morley tried to measure. The upshot: proximal aether is less active (lower pressure) than distal aether (higher pressure). Things in the vicinity of massive objects receive stronger impacts from the distal side of the halo than from the proximal side. This Aether Deceleration Theory is supported by much of the data generally considered as confirmation of General Relativity Theory.

Among historians of philosophy it is often taken for granted that the "Brentano school" was one of the influential philosophical movements at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century-but Brentano's own contributions are often eclipsed by that of his direct students. This invites to reflect on the nature of and the unity within the school. Since Brentano's conception of a rigorous, scientific philosophy had a strong impact on his students, it has been argued that this conception constitutes a unifying element in an otherwise heterogeneous group. The scope of this article is to shed light on this thesis and to show its limits. I argue for a differentiated view: the Brentano school is best seen not as a compact movement, but as a heterogeneous group of scholars who approached, in a given historical and geographical period, similar topics in very similar ways.

Many popular accounts maintain that E = mc 2 describes the conversion of matter into 'pure energy', often construed as a kind of matter-less motion. Today, 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' are spoken of as if they were two different 'things'. Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the 20 th century regression from realism to idealism in modern physics. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E = mc 2 simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transform a-tion of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equation led to the increasing objectification of energy. However, being a matter-motion term like momentum and force, energy neither exists, nor does it move. It is simply an idea, a concept, a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not 'contain' energy, for matter only can 'contain' other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. A speculative illustration involving electron-positron annihilation demonstrates how matter (electrons and positrons) appears to be converted into motion (EM radiation) without violating INSEPARABILITY. In essence , E = mc 2 describes the conversion of internal matter in motion to external matter in motion, and vice versa.
(To see how this applies to cosmology see: Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 343 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].)

Among historians of philosophy it is often taken for granted that the "Brentano school" was one of the influential philosophical movements at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century-but Brentano's own contributions are often eclipsed by that of his direct students. This invites to reflect on the nature of and the unity within the school. Since Brentano's conception of a rigorous, scientific philosophy had a strong impact on his students, it has been argued that this conception constitutes a unifying element in an otherwise heterogeneous group. The scope of this article is to shed light on this thesis and to show its limits. I argue for a differentiated view: the Brentano school is best seen not as a compact movement, but as a heterogeneous group of scholars who approached, in a given historical and geographical period, similar topics in very similar ways.

In a series of recent contributions it has been argued that Franz Brentano’s philosophical position constituted a unified system; Uriah Kriegel has called Brentano's philosophy as “the last grand system of Western philosophy”. The goal of the present paper is to scrutinise this claim and shed light on Brentano's methodological approach and his style of reasoning. I pay particular attention to two aspects: Brentano’s view that philosophy should be done in a rigorous, scientific manner and the fragmentary character of Brentano’s work. I argue that both aspects stand in contrast to the very idea of system-philosophy: the maxim that philosophy should adopt the method of the natural sciences was intended by Brentano as a way of distancing himself from system-philosophy; while the fragmentary character of Brentano’s work does not fulfill the aspiration of system-philosophy to provide an answer to everything. Yet, the incompleteness of his work is not an arbitrary or contingent aspect; it is rather a necessary side-effect of his methodological views.

In this paper I defend the claim that Paul Feyerabend held a robust metaphilosophical position for most of his philosophical career. This position I call Decision-Based Epistemology and reconstruct it in terms of three key components: (1) a form of epistemic voluntarism concerning the justification of philosophical positions and (2) a behaviorist account of philosophical beliefs, which allows him (3) to cast normative arguments concerning philosophical beliefs in scientific methodology, such as realism, in terms of means-ends relations. I then introduce non-naturalist and naturalist variants of his conception of normativity, which I trace back to his mentors Viktor Kraft and Karl Popper, respectively. This distinction, introduced on the metaphilosophical level, can can be put to use to explain key changes in Feyerabend's philosophical proposals, such as the viability of his methodological argument for realism. I conclude that this Decision-Based Epistemology should be further explored by historically embedding Feyerabend's metaphilosophy in a voluntarist tradition of scientific philosophy.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) states that the entropy or disorder of an isolated system can only increase. And yet, we see numerous systems all around us that that clearly have decreasing entropy and increasing order: the SLT-Order Paradox. Systems philosophers have proposed numerous solutions to the paradox without success. From Schrödinger's "negentropy" to Prigogine's "fluctuations," "distance from equilibrium ," "nonlinearity," or "self-organizing," there always has been residual bias in favor of the system over the environment. At one extreme, the SLT was said to predict the eventual "heat death" of the finite, expanding universe. As with all paradoxes, however, the solution simply involves a change in beginning assumptions. The paradox dissolves if one considers the universe to be infinite. Then, the SLT is a law of divergence; its complement is a law of convergence. Matter leaving one portion of the infinite, 3-dimensional universe invariably converges upon matter in another portion of that universe. Destruction in one place leads to construction in another place. The resulting complementarity shows the SLT to be a restatement of Newton's First Law of Motion in which the word "unless" is replaced by the word "until," in tune with Infinite Universe Theory. The imagined "ideal isolation" required by the SLT has an equally imaginary "ideal nonisolation" required by its complement. All real systems come into being at the behest of relative nonisolation and dissipate at the behest of relative isolation. Complementarity is essential for univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter in motion within and without.

" Liberal Arts Education " include hundreds of classes that seem sometimes disconnected or without real world applications. Yet, we all evolved in the same biological environment, acquired our mental map by our cultures, are influenced by technology and modern institutions, and demand basic human rights. This class examines the challenges of modern civilization within western and non-western perspectives by concentrating on the following questions: 1-What is the price of having some homo sapiens leave the hunter-gatherer lifestyle to establish urban centers? 2-How can we figure out what is sound, fallacious, irrelevant, or deceiving discourse? 3-Is it true that there are no factual objects, truthful statements, and virtuous values? 4-If there are, how do we access them? 5-How did our modern world come into existence since the 1600s and which form of political-economy is the most sustainable? 6-What do we do with the majority of the world population who are harmed by some of the fruits of modernity? 7-What is the untold story of modern progress in the Third World? These controversies over " modernity " and how natural, social, and humanistic disciplines constitute a unified field is the central goal of the course. In short, we will debate how well-grounded, well-reasoned, and well-coordinated knowledge can make a better form of globalization. The following works will be appreciated, analyzed, and discussed:

Why scientific philosophy? Is there a good reason for us to adopt the approach of scientific philosophy when ethics and bioethics are considered? According to Prof. Dr. Yaman Örs, who embraces the approach of logical empiricism and scientific philosophy, basically as defended by Hans Reichanbach, there is. In this paper, accordingly, Prof. Örsʼs approach to philosophy, ethics and bioethics will be discussed. For the main aim of this paper, I will discuss the contents of a book consisting of the related papers of Professor Örs in Turkish, edited by me, and which we hope will be published in the course of this year: “The Meaning and Meaninglessness of Ethics From The Perspective of a Scientific Philosopher”. There are five main chapters in this book: (1) Main Lines of Yaman Örsʼs Approach to Scientific Philosophy, (2) His Writings on Ethics, (3) The Ethics of Philosophy, (4) His Writings on Bioethics, and (5) His Papers on Medical Ethics. Throughout this paper, I will focus on the systematics of the book and its chapters, explaining Prof. Örsʼs methodological approach to philosophy and ethics before signifying in detail the importance of his own specific philosophical terms in this context, such as “the ethics of philosophy or philosophizing”, “the ethics of philosophers”, “the problem sets in bioethics and medical ethics”, and “ethics of the professions as differentiated extensions of ethics”.

Istanbul 2011. Ethics and Bioethics in Prof. Yaman Örs’s Scientific Philosophy. EACME (European Association of Centres of Medical Ethics), 25th Annual Conference, Istanbul, Turkey. (Sep)

This conversation between Peirce, founder of pragmatism, and neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty is compiled from their own published words. This wide-ranging conversation, covering almost every field of philosophy, reveals the richness of Peirce's thought, and the poverty of Rorty's.

If this paper is of interest to you, you might  also want to look at "Why I'm a Peirce Person" (2014) and "The Legitimacy of Metaphysics" (2007).

The SIMAN coefficient is the average ratio obtained when each variable in a set of multivariate data is divided by the larger value for that variable in either of two samples. By dividing by the larger value for any one measurement, trace elements (or minute quantities) can be compared along with major elements (or large quantities) with each type of variable influencing the SIMAN coefficient to the same degree. SIMAN coefficients produce a similarity matrix of comparisons between analyses of all samples. The comparison of any two samples results in a coefficient that remains unchanged by later addition of other samples to the data set. The coefficient is related to the analytical precision of replicates and is probably best used where the variability within classes is low. It has been used successfully in volcanic ash correlation with trace element and major element data.

The absurd idea that the universe exploded out of nothing is a commonplace among today's mathematicians , cosmologists, astronomers, and physicists. Cosmology has become cosmogony, the dubious study of the "origin" of the universe. The entire universe is being treated conceptually as a "system;" a finite, isolated entity. We have reached an intellectual dead end. How do we get out of it? My new book, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein, shows the direction we must take. Mere calculation and additional rose-colored observation will be to no avail, for the persistence of the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is rooted in the perpetual philosophical struggle that underlies our understanding of the universe and our place in it. In philosophy, as in science, it is necessary to begin with assumptions. One cannot travel to the end of the universe to prove whether it is infinite or finite. To begin with the assumption of finity, as mathematics and the BBT demand, is to end with finity. However, if one chooses the philosophical alternative, infinity, then the irrationality perpetrated by the BBT disappears and cosmology becomes legitimate. We are left with an eternal, infinite universe that, as David Bohm maintained exactly 50 years ago, can never yield complete equations for even one phenomenon. The Scientific Worldview describes how this universe works via the universal mechanism of evolution, "univi-ronmental determinism." Univironmental determinism is the simple proposition that what happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the relationship between the infinite matter in motion within (the microcosm) and the infinite matter in motion without (the macrocosm). In the scheme of things, the BBT is pre-Copernican and symptomatic of the myopic worldview held by society at large. The BBT cannot be rejected without rejecting finity.

Susan Haack, “Do Not Block the Way of Inquiry.”

Abstract: The first goal is to understand why Peirce describes his motto, “Do Not Block the Way of Inquiry,” as a corollary of the “first rule of reason,” why he believes it deserves to be inscribed on every wall of the city of philosophy, and what he has in mind when he characterizes the various barricades philosophers set up, the many obstacles they put in the path of inquiry. This soon leads us to important, substantive themes in Peirce’s meta-philosophical, cosmological, metaphysical, logical, and epistemological work (§1). However, it also leads us to what might seem to be a tension in his account of the motives for inquiry. So the second goal is to track the source of this apparent tension, and to show how Peirce resolved it (§2). But the ultimate goal is to explain why Peirce’s warning against blocking the way of inquiry is no less important, given the condition of philosophy today, than it was when he offered it more than a century ago—perhaps even more so (§3).

If this paper interests you, you might also want to look at my "Why I'm a Peirce Person" (2014), and "The Legitimacy of Metaphysics" (2007).

POWERPOINTS TO ACCOMPANY THIS PAPER ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SECTION LABELED “SELECTED PRESENTATIONS” BELOW (UNDER “MORE”).

From Lantzky et al. (1978): Catastrophe theory, the recent development of René Thom, permits mathematical descriptions to be obtained for physical processes in which the dependent parameter has abrupt changes in value and, over some range of values of the independent parameters, assumes one of several values for a given value of the independent parameters. Catastrophe theory is briefly discussed and potential applications to geologic processes are mentioned. The theory is applied to the Permian extinction of marine invertebrates; our conclusion is that a reduction in oceanic salinity was a more significant factor in the extinction of marine invertebrates than was a reduction in the area of shallow seas. INTRODUCTION A physical process in which the dependent parameter behaves as a smoothly changing function of the independent parameters is commonly describable by the use of differential equations. In contrast, it has been difficult to model processes for which the dependent parameter has abrupt changes in value and assumes one of several values for a given value of the independent parameters. The recent development of catastrophe