Hi Stephen P. King  

Glad to have a fellow enthusiast. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
11/7/2012  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 


----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Stephen P. King  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-11-07, 12:02:52 
Subject: Re: Peirce's concept of logical abduction-- a possible moneymaker 


On 11/7/2012 10:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Bruno Marchal  

Yes, by new I mean contingent. But Kant, although his examples  
are debatable, at least sought a synthetic a priori,  
which of course would be a gold mine, or perhaps a stairway  
to the divine.  

Pragmatism rejects the idea of there being any  
such universals, but I think by abduction strives  
to obtain completly new results (if actually new I can't say).  
I think that's why Peirce came up with the concept of abduction.  
The concept is very seductive to me for its possible 
power of discovery of something unknown or new.  
If comp could do this, I'd not spend a moment more on  
simulating the brain. Such a program might be worth a lot of  
money in venues such as AI, the defense industry, medicine 
and criminal investigation a la Sherlocki Holmes. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning  


"Abduction[1] is a form of logical inference that goes from data description of 
something to a  
hypothesis that accounts for the reliable data and seeks to explain relevant 
evidence.  
The term was first introduced by the American philosopher Charles Sanders 
Peirce (1839?1914) as 
"guessing".[2] Peirce said that to abduce a hypothetical explanation from an 
observed surprising circumstance  
is to surmise that may be true because then would be a matter of course.[3] 
Thus, to abduce  
from involves determining that is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not 
necessary, for [b, unclear symbol].  

For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be  
unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the  
possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. (But note that Peirce did  
not remain convinced that a single logical form covers all abduction.)[4]  
Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from P to Q involves not simply  
a determination that, e.g., Q is sufficient for P, but also that Q is among the 
 
most economical explanations for P. Simplification and economy are what call 
for the 'leap' of abduction.[5] In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive  
reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. Abductive reasoning  
can be understood as "inference to the best explanation".[6]  
There has been renewed interest in the subject of abduction in the  
fields of law,[7] computer science, and artificial intelligence research.[8] " 



Dear Roger, 

    I am a HUGE fan of Peirce. I hope to work with you and any one else to 
elaborate on his ideas. I think that there are no ideal absolutes except only 
those Hintikka decision games converge to Nash equilibria in some finite number 
of steps. 


--  
Onward! 

Stephen

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to