Niall Roe

Now out in Studies in HPS! 'Artefactualism and the twofold experience of modelling': authors.elsevier.com/a/1mH3%7E8yu...

Short article building on the phenomenology of modelling experience as discussed in @msuarez.bsky.social's excellent book, Inference and Representation.

2026 Conference Call for Papers: Science and Technology in the Anthropocene April 2 – 3, 2026 A conference about human experience in a world with non-biological intelligent systems and the environmental prob…

Call for abstracts for the first conference of our new Center for Humanities and Technology. Please share!

uchumanitiestech.org/2026-confere...

--Part of Peirce's Carnegie Application.

Hence, the word by the vulgar and eventually by the refined, though not by logicians, was spelled with a single s, premise. It was not until much later that logicians, to give themselves a mundane air, took up this false spelling.)"

So when the logical word came in (the word premises having presumably already been pronounced with its first s hard), the vulgar thought it somewhat mysterious and doubtless the same mysterious thing which the lawyers spoke of in the plural.

It thus passed into English in its plural form; and this plural form masked its adjectival nature, so that the unlearned did not know what it meant. Probably not one uneducated man today who talks glibly about the premises could tell what the word premises means.

But when it became more common so as to be written by persons of insufficient learning, it was confused with another word, the legal word, generally used in the plural, premises. This word is simply a French legal adjective meaning "aforesaid," and commonly used in the phrase "les choses promises."

The word praemissa is a substantive meaning a premiss, came into Latin very late and was never very common. Consequently, the English word was for a long time little used; but when it was used, it was always spelled premiss.

"Of First Premisses. (Since somebody may think that I write premiss instead of premise from negligence, may I be permitted to say that desperately negligent as I am of non-logical matters, I endeavor to attend to all the minutiae of logic.

“My book is meant for people who want to find out; and people who want philosophy ladled out to them can go elsewhere. There are philosophical soup shops at every corner, thank God! . . .The first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already“

Thanks @drbeasley.bsky.social !

Epistemic nominalisation.

Experimentation and thinking at the level of a program of experiments
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/09/05/e...

I suppose then that the legitimacy of these studies is largely in the head too? To the extent they are underwritten by causal relations. (Half kidding.)

Ya I think I would recommend it. I remember it being a historical overview plus some contemporary discussion. I don't remember it beating you over the head with pragmatism, but I am sure it would resonate with pragmatist ideas. (I read it in 2014, so this may be off.)

Hot off the press: Michael Kremer’s and my resurrection of Margaret Macdonald.

(Think “faculty”, which has the same root).

I have! (Did my undergraduate thesis on Peirce and scepticism.)

Great colours.

Some chairs and a hat.

Tonight’s clouds looked kiiiinda like this

*Lawrence (oops)

Thorndike (thorndyke?) has a great book on experiment and magic, and Lawerence Principe has a great history of alchemy. Both might help
keep a scratching that itch.

Seems like “intuition” comes from something like “watching inside” in + tueri, similar root to “tutor”, watcher.

Thank you!

Ten minute sunset sketch.

Some cabin sketches.