Dear G - Not at all - I do not think it is a bad analogy - I think it is a great analogy! As any analogy, it has similar and non-similar parts. But the similar parts of this one are eye-opening … Best F
Den 18/09/2014 kl. 16.38 skrev Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> : 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.
----------------------------- 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 .
