Jerry, List, You can link a horse to water but you cannot make it click.
(It just goes to show, by the way, that an index, like every other sign, is a symbol at the end of the day.) Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Mar 4, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jon, list, > > Despite your noble efforts to address it, the problem continues to persist. > It appears it doesn't even matter that you're right. > > What would you say is a best strategy for fixing the problem of communicating > Peirce correctly other than what you or anyone else is doing? Are they even > doing the same as you? > > Best, > Jerry > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 10 >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/04/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-10/ >> Date : March 4, 2016 at 3:30 pm >> >> Peircers, >> >> Continuing efforts to clarify the distinctive character and >> role of abductive reasoning within the well-formed inquiry. >> >> Re: Beyond Experiment >> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8323 >> • Scott Church >> http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8323&cpage=1#comment-221819 >> >> Names are not important of course, except for the purpose of >> communication. The important thing is for us to distinguish >> hypothesis formation from hypothesis evaluation. Now, there >> happens to be a long tradition of using the word “abduction” >> to distinguish that former, most incipient stage of inquiry >> and I think it serves communication to preserve that tradition. >> >> Concepts, hypotheses, and theories have to be formed, logically >> speaking, before they can be evaluated. In complex inquiries >> extending over long periods of time, formation, evaluation, and >> re-formation will of course proceed in cascades of parallel and >> series operations, but the analytic distinction between elements >> and mixtures is still worth its salt. >> >> The role of ab-, de-, in-duction in the cycle of inquiry >> is discussed a bit further in the following article: >> >> • InterSciWiki • Inquiry >> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry >> >> Resources >> ========= >> >> • Prospects for Inquiry Driven Systems >> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Prospects_for_Inquiry_Driven_Systems >> >> • Introduction to Inquiry Driven Systems >> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Introduction_to_Inquiry_Driven_Systems >> >> • Functional Logic : Inquiry and Analogy >> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Functional_Logic_:_Inquiry_and_Analogy >> >> 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 .
