Jon, list, I tend to agree with your post, Jon, although I might associate the categories somewhat differently for abduction.
In my own analysis of abduction I tend to employ the famous 'bean' example (which categorially explicates deduction, inducton, and abduction; see: CP 2.622-3) along with Peirce's suggestion that Retroduction (inference from effect to cause) will tend to bring about sound hypotheses in a scientific mind, that is, one open and extremely well-prepared. In that case 3ns stands for that scientific mind set (this needs further explication, I know, but the suggestion is that the scientist has 'previewed', as it were, the entire requisite inquiry process--that's the retroduction), so can posit an explanatory hypothesis (1ns), which makes sense of that unusual phenomenon within the world (2ns). So the order (in the bean example) is 3ns -> 1ns -> 2ns. That's just a very brief and rough (perhaps confusing) sketch requiring much more explication, and if I get a chance in an, unfortunately, super-busy end of week and weekend, I'll try to say more in the next few days. But I need immediately add that I think that your suggestion that abduction might follow a reverse vectorial path than inquiry (you suggested the categorial ordering of 2ns -> 3n -> 1ns for abduction, what I've termed the order or vector of aspiration) is an interesting one to consider. And so I'm once again reminded of Peirce's comment to the effect that the categories offer only 'hints' and 'suggestions' (as valuable as these proved to be through his entire scientific and philosophic career from 'A New List' through his architectonic around the turn of century). Best, Gary R [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 Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > My understanding is that a computer (i.e., mathematical) model is a > primarily *iconic* representation that is generated mainly by abduction > (Firstness); in particular, it is an icon of *relations*, which is > Peirce's definition of a *diagram*. The analysis or processing of it is > simply the working out of its necessary consequences; i.e., deduction > (Thirdness). Its object in a scientific or engineering context is the > actual situation, which is why it has to be tested by means of induction > (Secondness). > > Regarding CP 5.189, it seems to me that the categories are more properly > associated with each step as follows. > > - The surprising fact, C, is observed - Secondness (induction). > - But if A were true, C would be a matter of course - Thirdness > (deduction). > - Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true - Firstness > (abduction). > > Of course, as Gary R. has pointed out, the process of inquiry takes > place in the reverse order. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
