Jon S., Gary R., list,
My diagram arises from a particular account by Peirce of deduction. Gary
R. may have some other passages from Peirce in mind.
Best, Ben
On 5/1/2016 4:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
Ben U. and I seem to be on the same page here. He diagrammed
deduction thus ...
2. Minor premiss, case. Sensation, feeling [firstness].
|> 1. Major premiss, rule. Habit [thirdness].
3. Conclusion, result. Decision, volition [secondness].
... and I would diagram abduction (per CP 5.189 via CP 2.623) thus ...
3. Explanatory hypothesis A, case. Possibility [firstness].
|> 2. Reason why C would follow from A, rule. Necessity [thirdness].
1. Surprising fact C, result. Actuality [secondness].
Simply reversing the order would also be a diagram of deduction, but
with the major and minor premisses switched. As Ben U. pointed
out, this has no effect on the logic itself, but perhaps it helps
illustrate why abduction is sometimes called retroduction.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://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 .
