Glen,
I have yet to integrate my thinking about "convergence" (preferable to "consensus", I think) with the stuff about recursion, which was near-30 years ago. It was the sort of thing that I though Peter Lipton and I might do when we were old. Not sure I am man enough to do it alone. I think Peirce would say ... particularly the later Peirce ... that in recursive explanations lurks a form of "right-thinking" that cannot be described in the terms of formal logic Remember that a click on the abstract gets you the whole paper, should you be curious. By the way, there is a truly excellent summary of Peirce's thought, called On Peirce ... just a hundred pages ... and expensive for all of that ... just a pamphlet, really, .... but worth every penny, by Cornelis DeWaal (Wadsworth). My Peirce mentor also approves of it. N -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen e p ropella Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:42 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] scientific evidence 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> 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> 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> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ 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
