Claudio, list, Claudio wrote: "I would say that instinct is not related to knowledge, but abduction and habit are. There is no 'good' abduction without knowledge... "
I'm not certain that I agree with the first part of this statement, viz., "that instinct is not related to knowledge," but that is a complex issue which would take some considerable work to address adequately (Manuel's snippet and my previous long Peircean quote, as well as the passage below may suggest a path which such an inquiry might take). But I fully agree with the second part of your comment, viz. that "there is no 'good' abduction without knowledge," what Peirce calls "the well-prepared mind" making good guesses leading to, in the following example, correct hypotheses in science (something not dissimilar must surely be the case in art, architecture, etc., I'm sure you'd agree). . . . Yes; it must be confessed that if we knew that the impulse to prefer one hypothesis to another really were analogous to the instincts of birds and wasps, it would be foolish not to give it play, within the bounds of reason; especially since we must entertain some hypothesis, or else forego all further knowledge than that which we have already gained by that very means. But is it a fact that man possesses this magical faculty? Not, I reply, to the extent of guessing right the first time, nor perhaps the second; but *that the well-prepared mind has wonderfully soon guessed each secret of nature is historical truth. All the theories of science have been so obtained *[emphasis added]. But may they not have come fortuitously, or by some such modification of chance as the Darwinian supposes? I answer that three or four independent methods of computation show that it would be ridiculous to suppose our science to have so come to pass. [. . .] There is a reason, an interpretation, a logic, in the course of scientific advance, and this indisputably proves to him who has perceptions of rational or significant relations, that man's mind must have been attuned to the truth of things in order to discover what he has discovered. It is the very bedrock of logical truth. CP 6.476 Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Claudio Guerri <[email protected]> wrote: > Charles, List, > bref... > I would say that instinct is not related to knowledge, but abduction and > habit are. > There is no 'good' adbduction without knowledge... > there is no 'interesting' habit without it neither... > best > Claudio > > > [email protected] escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 12:42 p.m.: > > It is not obvious to me, perhaps exposing holes in my knowledge of > Peirce, if or how instinct is different from abduction. > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Benjamin Udell" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:50:28 AM > *Subject: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct > > John C., list, > > Here's another Peirce quote on instinct, FWIW: > > [§6. The Fallibility of Reasoning and the Feeling of Rationality (Minute > Logic, ergo 1902 or 1903) > CP 2.170.] > If I may be allowed to use the word "habit," without any implication > as to the time or manner in which it took birth, so as to be equivalent to > the corrected phrase "habit or disposition," that is, as some general > principle working in a man's nature to determine how he will act, then an > instinct, in the proper sense of the word, is an inherited habit , or in > more accurate language, an inherited disposition. But since it is difficult > to make sure whether a habit is inherited or is due to infantile training > and tradition, I shall ask leave to employ the word "instinct" to cover > both cases. [....] > [End quote] > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=De7DAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=%22Now+we+certainly+have+habits+of+reasoning;+and+our+natural+judgments+as+to+what+is+good%22&source=bl&ots=e0HIZ4043c&sig=H37JxmUljKdiVD46nohWjnCEm28 > > I've often thought that there's not much difference between talk of > 'developing an instinct' and 'developing an intuition'. I remember a > college math text book for a course written by its professor, and the theme > was the use of both reasoning and 'intuition' - in the sense of instinct > (not like Kantian intuition). I've wondered why Peirce doesn't look more at > the idea of individual development of abductive instinct. At one point he > seems to identify instinct with half-conscious inference, but it may be > that he was listing two different things: > > [[Logic and Spiritualism], March-April 1890, W 6:387 > Conclusions men reach they know not how, are better than those > fortified by unscientific logic. By logic, _*Aquinas*_, if not _*Calvin*_, > persuaded himself that one of the chief joys of the blest will be to peer > over heaven's parapet and watch the damned writhing in torments and rage > below: by instinct, or half-conscious inference, a poor peasant girl will > inwardly reject the doctrine, for all revered pastor may say. [....] > [End quote, font-enlargement added] > > Best, Ben > On 7/14/2015 8:36 PM, John Collier wrote: > > Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending > this gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it. > > I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not particularly > useful. > > I should be asleep. Best to all, > > John > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM > To: John Collier; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > > > [Text File:message-footer.txt] > > > > -- > > Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri > Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo > Universidad de Buenos Aires > Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270 > 1427 BUENOS AIRES > Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895 > Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123 > E-mail: <[email protected]>[email protected] > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
