Friedrich Wilhelm Grafe<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://mas.to/@tg9541" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>tg9541</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/bookstodon" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>bookstodon</span></a></span> <span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy</span></a></span> </p><p>yes, agree in a way. but do not see a win in playing off those two against each other, as later (after their common work PM) their work developed rather independently in more or less complementary areas, sometimes overlapping in <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a> topics.</p><p>E.g., if one focusses in <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a> first of all on questions of <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/ontology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ontology</span></a> (of science), ANW's process ontology will be much more impressive than the duplicating entities of logical constructs in say 'logical atomism' (which imop is a late and needless sin of BR). </p><p>If, on the other hand, the main focus is <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/logic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>logic</span></a> and logic related<br><a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/epistemology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>epistemology</span></a> and/or <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/PhilMath" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilMath</span></a>, there is roughly anything deeper and more worth considering than say the theory of incomplete symbols; and perhaps no more careful and penetrating study than the ramified theory of types as developed from the circulus vitiosus argument, even when this theory was abandoned in the sequel for independent reasons.</p>