List,
Quite a few people did visit my blog. There's a statement in it that
I've corrected. I said that, in the pervasive absence of such heuristic
merits as nontriviality, natural simplicity, etc., no mind would bother
with inference. It might be better say more narrowly that no mind would
bother with _/reasoning/_, in the sense of explicit, consciously weighed
inference. I wasn't thinking with Peirce's exemplary broadness.
Inference without those heuristic merits would amount to remembering
(... ∴ /p/, ∴ /p/, ∴ /p/, ∴ ...), free-associative or at any rate wild
supposition, and so on; one might call them degenerate cases of
inference but, in their seasons, they have their merits, and arguably
need to be taken into account for Peirce's idea that all of a mind's
action is a continuum of inference.
A pretty wild play of the imagination is, it cannot be doubted, an
inevitable and probably even a useful prelude to science proper.
— Peirce, CP 1.235 (1902). Snifter clink to Gary Furhman
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/index.php/2015/09/15/wild-science/
Best, Ben
On 9/15/2015 12:52 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Gary R., thanks for the promotion!
My post "Deductive vs. ampliative; also, repletive vs. attenuative"
hasn't reached a final or at any rate stable form,
[....]
-----------------------------
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 .
