List ~ > * 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.
All of that I agree with. But it describes the activity that results in abduction. It is not a logical abduction. Abduction is the understanding that results from the activity -- if the guess proves successful. Regards, Tom Wyrick On May 3, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: Jerry, Reviewing the many tangents of the last week -- I can't really think of anything better than to repeat the advice that I gave below. Regards, Jon > On 4/13/2016 5:01 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > Jon, list: > > I should have been more moderate in my response. > > Given: > > 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. > > where, > > C = icon, Peirce’s theory of abduction, semiotic or pragmatism, > where pragmatism is “nothing else than the logic of abduction”, > > and > > A = index, “2 variants from NEM 4” *or* CP 5.189. > > then, > > My inference to the best explanation is CP 5.189 over NEM4 *because* > is perceptual judgment, which is valued by spiritedness. But this > at stake; whether we have the right to say whether perceptual judgment > is what ought to be valued in abduction in the first place. This is > decided as a matter of social principles because esthetics. > > Best, > > Jerry Rhee > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> “*Whether this be a correct account of the matter or not…that all >> conceptions must be given substantially in perception, three objections >> will be started. Namely, in the first place, it may be said that even if >> this be the normative form of abduction, the form to which abduction ought >> to conform*…” >> >> ~ CP 5.189, EP 2, p.231 >> >> Jon, >> >> my point here is to show that to determine the goodness of what a good >> definition of abduction should consist in, we need to determine the class >> membership of what C (Peirce's theory of abduction, semiotic) should entail >> at the outset. You do this in your response; that you are after the >> “bare essentials of Peirce’s semiotics”. But all you’re after is already >> considered and contained in CP 5.189, in one, two, three..C, A, B. >> >> Importantly, perceptual judgment is part of abduction, it ought to be, >> regardless of whether you accuse it of being pithy or not. If you >> dismiss this part, you dismiss a major aspect of Peirce’s pragmaticism >> because ethics depends on esthetics and logic on ethics; "spiritedness >> privileged over appetite as the ally of reason” (paraphrased from Moss >> and others, c.f., *Republic*). >> >> As for its “pith”, why do you think I promote examining phi spiral >> abduction where the icon, index and symbol is stated explicitly? >> >> It is precisely in anticipation of criticisms of “pith”. It is an >> example that contains responses and imaginations to questions at its limit >> for *all who investigate* before they even start but I’m supposed to >> defend why it’s beyond your comprehension, too. Why it isn't a matter of >> genuine doubt to you because I can't make you see why this perception is >> relevant. So, you walk away and it’s my fault. So goes the world… >> >> Best, >> Jerry R >> >>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Inquiry Blog: >>> • >>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/04/definition-and-determination-11/ >>> >>> Peirce List: >>> •• http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18569 >>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18634 >>> JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18635 >>> JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18636 >>> >>> Jerry, List, >>> >>> For now I'm just focused on the bare essentials of Peirce's semiotics, >>> specifically, the minimally adequate definition of a sign relation as >>> it figures into Peirce's definition of logic along with the necessary >>> concepts of triple correspondence and triadic determination on which >>> all the rest depends. >>> >>> To Wit: >>> >>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-on-the-definition-of-logic/ >>> >>> It would take a while to get from there to his full theory of inquiry, >>> involving the interplay of abductive, deductive, and inductive styles >>> of inference, but first things first, as they say. >>> >>> Just as a side note, though, I'm sure every writer who ever attempted >>> to introduce a complex subject to a new audience has tried the tactic >>> of seeking out the simplest possible capsule summary of its main gist. >>> The pithy epitome of abduction you cite below is a perfect example of >>> just such a capsule and I have seen vast literatures in several areas >>> spring from its pith and moment only to have their currents turn awry >>> from its oversimpletonations. Let's not get addicted to this capsule! >>> >>> A better idea of the rich interplay among the three styles of reasoning >>> and how they work in tandem to reinforce one another in genuine inquiry >>> may be had from the study I carried out back when I was working to view >>> Peirce's theories of inference, information, and inquiry from a systems >>> analysis perspective on a systems engineering platform. >>> >>> Functional Logic : Inquiry and Analogy >>> >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Functional_Logic_:_Inquiry_and_Analogy >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>>> On 4/12/2016 4:48 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jon and list, >>>> How about a test of our understanding? >>>> If there is one statement that can determine what is meant by Peirce’s >>>> theory of abduction, then is the following an over or >>>> under-determination? >>>> Is it exact and complete? >>>> Is it perfect? >>>> Why or why not? >>>> The surprising fact, C, is observed. >>>> But if A were true, then C would be a matter of course. >>>> Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. (CP 5.189) >>>> Best, >>>> Jerry R >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Inquiry Blog: >>>>> >>>>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/04/definition-and-determination-11/ >>>>> >>>>> Peirce List: >>>>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18569 >>>>> JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18598 >>>>> >>>>> Jeff, List, >>>>> >>>>> Let me go back to this point in the discussion and emphasize >>>>> a few points that appear to have gotten lost in what followed. >>>>> >>>>> I thought my first paragraph made it clear that I would be >>>>> focusing on “the meaning of determination as it figures in >>>>> Peirce's definition of a sign relation”. If I get a chance >>>>> to revise that second paragraph I'll add a word to reinforce >>>>> that focus, say, as follows: >>>>> >>>>> Looking back over many previous discussions on the Peirce >>>>>> List, I think the most important and frequently missed point >>>>>> is that concepts like correspondence and determination in >>>>>> Peirce['s semiotics] refer to triadic forms of correspondence >>>>>> and determination, and that these do not reduce to the dyadic >>>>>> structures that are endemic to the more reductionist paradigms. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, I hope that much is clear now. >>>>> >>>>> By “Peirce's definition of a sign relation” I really mean the >>>>> select number of his best definitions, not mere descriptions, >>>>> the definitions that are strong enough to bear the load of >>>>> a consequential and consistent theory of sign relations. >>>>> >>>>> The best candidates I can think of in that regard >>>>> are the 2 variants from NEM 4, quoted on this page: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/01/c-s-peirce-%E2%80%A2-on-the-definition-of-logic/ >>>>> >>>>> I'll have to break here as I've got plumbers coming to fix some pipes >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/4/2016 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Peircers, >>>>>> >>>>>> The subject of determination comes up from time to time. >>>>>> Here is a link to an assortment of excerpts I collected >>>>>> back when I was first trying to understand the meaning >>>>>> of determination as it figures in Peirce's definition >>>>>> of a sign relation. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/User:Jon_Awbrey/EXCERPTS >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking back over many previous discussions on the Peirce List, >>>>>> I think the most important and frequently missed point is that >>>>>> concepts like correspondence and determination in Peirce refer >>>>>> to triadic forms of correspondence and determination, and that >>>>>> these do not reduce to the dyadic structures that are endemic >>>>>> to the more reductionist paradigms. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this more general perspective, the family of concepts including >>>>>> correspondence, determination, law, relation, structure, and so on >>>>>> all fall under the notion of constraint. Constraint is present in >>>>>> a system to the extent that one set of choices is distinguished by >>>>>> some mark from a larger set of choices. That mark may distinguish >>>>>> the actual from the possible, the desired from the conceivable, or >>>>>> any number of other possibilities depending on the subject in view. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA ----------------------------- 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 .
