List, Ben, Clark, Danko: On Apr 3, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Peirce also characterizes non-deductive inference as _ampliative_, that is, > having conclusions not deductively implied by the premisses, and I still like > the idea, that I had before reading Peirce, of distinguishing induction from > more 'leapy' or conjectural inference, by whether the ampliative conclusion > deductively implies the premisses or not (I've tended in the past to speak of > 'surmise' when I've had in mind conjectural inference so defined, because > I've doubted that people would agree to define abduction as inference that > lacks deductive implication whether by premisses of conclusions or vice > versa). Now, it's easy enough to come up with an ampliative conclusion; such > a conclusion doesn't need abductive plausibility or Peirce's inductive > verisimilitude (the likeness of the conclusion to the premissual samples) in > order to be ampliative; but, without them, it just isn't intrinsically > fruitful or promising in inquiry. Likewise a deductive conclusion can simply > repeat a premiss word for word and still be deductive, but such a deduction, > lacking any new or nontrivial aspect, just isn't intrinsically fruitful or > promising in inquiry. First, thanks to you, Ben, I have studied the potential meaning of the logical term, ampliative, for nigh unto a decade now, perhaps longer. At this point in time, one firm conclusion about CSP's usage of this term is clear, at least in my mind, with respect to the life sciences. Within the framework of the explicit sortal logic of chemistry, molecular biology, and the pan-chemical sciences, CSP's usage of the term ampliative infers that: > the ampliative conclusion deductively implies the premisses. Within the Peircian mathematical / philosophical context, this conclusion is a central component of the trichotomy components, sin-sign, index, icon, Rheme and Dicisign with respect to the legisign as well as organic mathematics. As I have asserted before, the trichotomy is an example of chemical reasoning that is extensible. Within the sortal logic of organic mathematics, the legisign (natural law in the sense of Kant?) includes the concepts of atomic masses and valence. In this case, I simply assert that sin-sign of a molecule, as representations of the forms of atomic weights, is a basis of CSP's central term "index." This basic logical chemical operation of addition of atomic weights is physically measured as a quali-sign of a molecular sin-sign. Both the qualisign and index are quantitative predicates of logical propositions of a molecular sin-sign. In the modern chemical icon (structure), these physically measured quantities, take on the form of a diagram, a graph, and, yet, more specifically, a labelled bipartite graph, a connected lattice of electrical relations that serves as the initial conditions for quantum mechanical calculations. In this context, these terms all describe mathematical terms relatable to the the index. Thus, I conclude that the Peircian term, ampliative, adroitly coheres with the logical unity of the natural sciences because of the physical logical connection between the sin-sign and it's index. Clark: In my opinion, your reading of the philosophical meaning of Bayesian logic is too broad when viewed from the logic of chemistry and CSP's trichotomy,. Chemical logic solved the Bayesian question for chemistry by addressing the factors that relate the molecular formula (as a Bayesian prior) to the chemical structure by using physical measurements. Consequently, the chemical logic is extensible indefinitely - for example, to DNA with millions of Bayesian terms. In short, the sortal logic of chemistry handles extremely perplex assortments of relations because it starts with the physical premise that each chemical element is unique. Danko: I am still working on your extensive narrative and its numerous logical assertions about the nature of the unities of the sciences. It is a very stimulating read, and like all good research projects, it raises more questions than it answers. Your usage of two terms leaves me pondering about your intended meanings. 1. Cybernetics? Does your usage of this term include dynamic descriptions of chemical events, such as ion transport across membranes? Or, are your using the term is a more restrictive sense? Does your usage have any mathematical implications or inferences? 2. Traverse? This is a verb. Who / what is the subject of this verb? Is your usage of the term "traverse" synonymous with the term "transitions to" or not? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
