Gary R., List: Perhaps we are simply coming up against a limitation of not only the bean example, but also how the three forms of inference themselves are presented in CP 2.623. That text seems to indicate that ANY reasoning process that concludes with a Rule is (by definition) induction. However, I vaguely recall that Peirce held up Kepler's discovery that planetary orbits are elliptical--clearly a Rule--as a paradigmatic instance of abduction. More food for thought ...
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon S, List, > > Jon concluded: > > > I wonder if I am simply looking at all of this from a different > perspective than your "vectorial" analysis--which, by the way, I value > greatly for having helped me sort out my concept of the "logic of > ingenuity" in engineering (1ns/3ns/2ns). > > > Well, I'm certainly pleased that vectorial analysis has proved helpful to > you in developing your "logic of ingenuity" in engineering, your recent > series of articles on the topic being very solid work indeed in my opinion. > > I offered a 'variation' on the bean example because of a point I'd > recently made regarding the importance I give to a kind of abduction where > the law (rule) is *not* known, where the hypothesis is concerned with > positing a *hitherto unknown law*. Perhaps the bean example doesn't work > very well for that purpose, but I will stick with my vectorial analysis for > abduction, or perhaps, retroduction: that one forms the abduction of the > new law all-at-once-together out of the storehouse of ones knowledge of the > issue which only the testing of it will show as confomring to reality or > not. > > I'm afraid that I am not able to grasp the analysis in the penultimate > paragraph of your message. But, again, your response may be the result of > my trying to generalize Peirce's vectorial order for abduction from the > bean example which, admittedly, is explicitly concerned with the kind of > 'sleuthing' abduction (whereas the rule *is* already knowns) I referred > to in an earlier post. Perhaps that stretches the bean example further than > it ought to be taken. But did I present a kind of induction in my recent > analysis? I don't think so. It's just not the kind of abduction the bean > example was divised to illustrate, thus, my 'variation'. > > But, be that as it may, I think I've said all I have to say on the topic > for now. Thanks for reading through my extended analysis which, I hope, at > least put some light on the 6 vectors themselves, whether or not they apply > to all inference patterns neatly or not. > > Best, > > Gary R >
----------------------------- 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 .
