I think the basic underlying question around abduction is - Is the generation of a new Rule-of-Formation, a product of the mind or pure mutant chance?
The Darwinian answer is that new Rules-of-Formation of species emerge by mutation; pure chance. I think that Peirce's abduction is showing that these new Rules are products of the Mind [or quasi-mind if you prefer] and emerge WITHIN the informational realities of the environment. So, real situations are observed, and a new Rule [and thus new species] develops to deal with these real situations. Whether it is the change in the beak of a bird to deal with hardening seed shells, or the development of camoflauge colours to hide from predators or.... Abduction is a flexible process of the universal Mind to generate adaptive rules. Within the scientific method, abduction is similar - it keeps explanations open to evidentiary proof and is able to abandon one rule and generate another. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Jerry Rhee Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Jerry R., List: As Edwina has explained, the formulation in CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism, so it cannot be precisely what Peirce was referencing in the quoted passage from the Neglected Argument. We can, however, construct a syllogism that fits the bill by paying careful attention to the nature of the two propositions, A and C, and a third that is only implicit in CP 5.189--which I will call R, because it serves as the REASON why C follows from A as a matter of course. C is "the surprising fact," R is "the circumstances of its occurrence," and A is "the credible conjecture" that "furnishes a possible Explanation." A and R thus serve as premisses from which C follows "as necessarily consequent." We can use Peirce's bean example to illustrate such a syllogism. Premiss A = These beans are from this bag. Premiss R = All of the beans from this bag are white. Conclusion C = These beans are white. This is deductively valid, a restatement of "if A then C because R." If we let X = these beans, Y = beans from this bag, and Z = white things, then the syllogism looks like this. A = X is Y. R = Y is Z. C = X is Z. Abduction, on the other hand, is starting with C and R, then inferring A as the (probable) explanation for C. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: As for whether I am allowed the power to equate B = (surprise or suspect), my spirited reasons are: “The inquiry begins with pondering these phenomena in all their aspects, in the search of some point of view whence the wonder shall be resolved. At length a conjecture arises that furnishes a possible Explanation, by which I mean a syllogism exhibiting the surprising fact as necessarily consequent upon the circumstances of its occurrence together with the truth of the credible conjecture, as premisses. On account of this Explanation, the inquirer is led to regard his conjecture, or hypothesis, with favour.” ~A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Rhee To: Peirce-L Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 7:12 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Would you say the following is a syllogism? Why or why not? The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.
----------------------------- 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 .
