Danko, list, I'm pretty sure that Danko didn't intend his reply for me
alone. In response, I'll say I'm glad I could be helpful.
I made my summary of points on the basis of the Peirce section (most of
which I wrote, and which I can see Danko has read), starting with the
"Pragmatism" subsection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning#Pragmatism through to
almost the end of the Peirce section (which is called "History" but now
the article's first section is _/also/_ called "History"), in the
Wikipedia article on "Abductive reasoning."
<https://web.archive.org/web/20130110024451/http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/%7Ewirth/>
I didn't touch on a detailed discussion by Peirce that I recall from
somewhere about how the surprising phenomenon ought to be inferrible
from the proposed hypothesis (maybe in "On the Logic of Drawing History
from Ancient Documents"), but I guess that's for another day.
Best, Ben
On 3/29/2015 4:48 PM, Danko Nikolic wrote:
Thank you Benjamin! This is a really helpful feedback. This is exactly
what I was hoping for. Now I feel like having directions for thinking,
learning, considering, improving. Yes!!!
Thank you.
Danko
On 29/03/15 22:40, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Danko, list,
Okay, I've looked again at the section on abduction in your paper.
Your question, as I understand it based on your past messages, is
whether you understand Peircean abduction correctly in your paper.
1. Peircean abductive inference is not Bayesian at any level. Insofar
as you involve Bayesian subjective priors at all (even if not on all
levels), your idea of abduction (or at least of how abduction
normatively ought to work) differs from Peirce's. You're allowed to
disagree with Peirce, of course, I'm just pointing out where you
diverge from Peirce.
2. You discuss the need for abduction as arising in changes of
situation or in lack of understanding of how to solve a problem with
which one is confronted. I guess that that is close enough to
Peirce's idea that abduction is the first step of inquiry and arises
in situations of surprise or extreme complication.
3. You have abduction guessing particular circumstances and general
rules in connection with particular circumstances. Close enough to
Peirce.
4a. You don't discuss abduction as inferring through an icon or
likeness. Can't evaluate your treatment of abduction in that respect.
4b. You don't discuss intrinsic value of an abduction - in
particular, natural simplicity, plausibility. Can't evaluate your
treatment of abduction in that respect.
4c. You discuss the testing of abduced hypotheses. That's Peircean
enough in a vague way. You don't discuss the selection of hypotheses
for testing, either for the tests' cheapness or for their strategic
value (breadth, caution, incomplexity) in expediting inquiry. You
don't discuss abduced hypotheses in terms of the (pragmatistic)
emphasis on conceivable (imaginable) practical implications, although
more generally you do see cognitions as implicit in 'action' modules,
which I take to be like dispositions for conduct. Can't evaluate your
treatment of abduction in those respects.
Now, I've already discussed 4b and 4c in previous messages, and have
thought that perhaps you've regarded them as implicit in your
discussion of abduction or elsewhere in the paper, so I was figuring
that you would reply by explaining how you have them covered. Maybe I
should have explicitly asked you!
If you have not dealt with 4a, 4b, and 4c in your treatment of
abduction, then I'd say that your idea of abduction is vague enough
in some important ways with regard to Peirce's, that one could say
that it's partly like Peirce's, and possibly like and possibly unlike
Peirce's idea in ways that you have not made explicit or that you
haven't addressed in your paper.
Best, Ben
On 3/29/2015 1:25 PM, Danko Nikolic wrote:
Dear Ben,
On 29/03/15 17:42, Benjamin Udell wrote:
In reading your links, I didn't seen an emphasis on abduction's
plausibility as naturalness and simplicity, though you did seem to
accept such ideas in one of your messages to peirce-l.
I discuss abduction in section 3.4 entitled "Anapoiesis and
abduction -- the mind" of the following paper:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002251931500106X
I am seeking feedback on that.
Danko
-----------------------------
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 .
