On 04/09/2013 11:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > But if you think I ought to have > a look at it, I will. In general, I am a fan of Peirce's earlier usage, > that seemed to give hope that we could work out in some detail the right > thinking by which fruitful conjectures are arrived at. In short, I don't > think that abduction is a post-modernist crap shoot.
No, I don't think you should look at "The Reach of Abduction". It's a good book and it helps me understand the subject, because it's a more formal/technical treatment without all the prosaic gymnastics others use to talk about it. > It argues that a form of quasi-circular thinking, "recursive theory," > is useful in the development of a science so long is one is > scrupulous in avoiding its pitfalls.[...] So, in the right hands, this > quasi circular explanation would lead to a more precise description > of the properties of morphine that put people to sleep. > > > Peter died last year, despite being many years my junior, and since I cannot > be trusted, on my own, to get these things right, I attach a link to the > abstract <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/id33.html> Thanks. I'll take a look at that. As you know, I'm a fan of circularity, especially when it can be formalized as in Aczel's non-well-founded sets. But I'm worried that a "recursive" rhetoric might come a bit too close to confirmation bias or motivated reasoning, which can be consequences of the type of long term consensus you're arguing for. -- glen e. p. ropella http://tempusdictum.com 971-255-2847 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
