Frederik,
Every analogy has its drawbacks, and I've always thought that the main drawback in Haack's crossword analogy for inquiry is that a puzzle (unlike nature) is an artifact intentionally created by humans (and a linguistic one at that!). But I don't follow you if you're saying that the problem with it is that "Crossword puzzles have only one solution, still that solution may be reached in a large number of different ways, all of them implying guesses, inductions, deductions in a trial-and-error process the details of whose trajectory can by no means be planned beforehand." This is true, but how does it show the crossword to be a bad analogy for science? Or is that not what you're saying? I must be missing your point here. (But maybe I shouldn't be posting this, because I don't see how it's related to NP Chapter 2 either! In which case you should probably ignore it . ) gary f. From: Frederik Stjernfelt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17-Sep-14 12:14 PM To: [email protected]; Peirce List Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6841] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 2 Dear Gary - Funny you mention Haack's crossword analogy. To me it is a brilliant example of how a simple metaphor may spread a lot of conceptual fog. Crossword puzzles have only one solution, still that solution may be reached in a large number of different ways, all of them implying guesses, inductions, deductions in a trial-and-error process the details of whose trajectory can by no means be planned beforehand. That analogy alone should give Haack a first-rate seat in Platonic heaven if such a thing existed. Best F Den 15/09/2014 kl. 18.21 skrev Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]> : Ben, Jeff D., lists, That's a good point, Ben, reminiscent of Peirce's comment that "Philosophy ought to imitate the successful sciences in its methods, so far as to proceed only from tangible premisses which can be subjected to careful scrutiny, and to trust rather to the multitude and variety of its arguments than to the conclusiveness of any one. Its reasoning should not form a chain which is no stronger than its weakest link, but a cable whose fibers may be ever so slender, provided they are sufficiently numerous and intimately connected" (EP1:29). It also reminds me of Susan Haack's crossword puzzle analogy: mutual reinforcement of solutions can be read as evidence for their correctness. gary f.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
