Jon Allen,
“All planetary orbits are elliptical” seems the rule to me in this case. Auke Van: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] Verzonden: donderdag 5 mei 2016 22:41 Aan: Gary Richmond <[email protected]> CC: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns 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 <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] <mailto:[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 _____ Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Versie: 2016.0.7596 / Virusdatabase: 4565/12163 - datum van uitgifte: 05/04/16
----------------------------- 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 .
