Hi everyone,
If you read CP 5.189 with logographic necessity (where “every part of the written speech must be necessary for the whole… (where) nothing is accidental…where everything is necessary at the place where it occurs” ~Strauss), that is, the form abduction *ought* to take (Peirce), then abduction is a formal method to transform genuine doubt about a perceptual judgment (surprise, suspect, matter of course) using triadic relations (C, A, B; esthetics, ethics, logic). It is also a recognition and response to certain expected patterns of political conflict (c.f., first line of Fixation of Belief and A Guess at the Riddle). Peirce was, in that sense, an exoteric writer. A Sign can be a first, a second or a third. A meaning is a third for the utterer or interpreter and not the commens. So a Sign can be a meaning but it can also be something other than meaning; especially to new inquirers entering inquiry. I consider Inference to the Best Explanation as the concluding part of the First Stage of Inquiry, not the beginning. Selecting the best explanation has to operate in context of relieving a genuine doubt, preceded by problem framing (abduction) and deduction of different possibilities. There is always the possibility that you might be choosing from a bad lot, so one should be clear about the relevance relation. Importantly, IBE mitigates importance of the thumotic component, the spiritedeness that seeks to rein in the multiplicity into simplicity in an earnest way. That is, that of First is so tender you cannot touch it without spoiling it. Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 7 > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/01/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-7/ > Date : March 1, 2016 at 12:34 pm > > Peircers, > > Here's another issue I thought had been cleared up > a long time ago but I find is still causing confusion, > the distinction between Peirce's concept of abduction > and Gilbert Harman's “inference to the best explanation”. > > Re: Peter Woit ( http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/ ) > • Beyond Experiment ( http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8323 > ) > > The phrase “inference to the best explanation” was coined by > Gilbert Harman in his attempt to explain abductive inference > but it conveys the wrong impression to anyone who takes it > as a substitute for the whole course of inquiry rather than > just its starting point. Peirce himself was always very > clear about this. > > > Regards, > > Jon > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
