Gary R., List: Just a few quick observations for the moment ...
- According to CP 5.189, abduction begins with the Result, the surprising fact (C); not with the Rule, the circumstances of its occurrence (B), which comes second. - Logically, the sequence of the two premisses makes no difference for ANY of the three forms of inference; so we need good reasons to prefer one order vs. the other in each of them. - I am still having a hard time seeing a practical difference between induction and your second version of abduction; you "guess" the Rule *because *of the Result, and the Case is how you subsequently go about corroborating or falsifying it. 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 4:51 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > You wrote: "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." > > That is true. So, for all 3 inference patterns: > > Result, 1ns > |> Rule, 3ns > Case, 2ns > > *Induction*: > > 2nd, 1ns, All these beans from the sample are white; > |> (End) 3ns, All the beans from this bag are *probably* white. > (Begin) 1st, 2ns, This large sample of beans is from this bag. > > Abduction in the bean example (including my diagram) does *not* end with > a rule, but rather *begins* with a rule, whether it's one already known > (a strict reading of 2.623) or, in my variation or extrapolation from that, > one which is retroduced. > > So for abduction ("hypothesis" in the bean example) one begins with a rule > (just as one does with deduction, but now moving vectorially in the > opposite direction): > > First, the strict reading if hypothesis (as given in 2.623). > > *Hypothesis (*from a rule already known): > > **2nd, 1ns: This handful of beans I find on the table are white: > |> *(Begin), 3ns: All the beans in this bag are white, > ***(End), 2ns: These beans are *possibly* from this bag. > > Now, I've tried to extrapolate to another kind of hypothesis than this > 'sleuthing' type; in this second situation one does *not *already know > for certain that the rule is that all the beans in the bag are white, but > guesses (retroduces?) that that may *possibly* be the rule. So my > variation. > > *Hypothesis (*from a new rule I guess to be true): > > **2nd, 1ns: *Because* I find a handful of white beans next ot it: > |> (Start)*1st, 3ns: I think this bag of beans may all be white, > (End)*** 3rd, 2ns: *But *I will have to examine (sample) the entire bag > to see if all are indeed white and that what I thought was *possibly *the > case is actually the case (that my hypothesis is true). > > I mentioned in my original post that I might find that all the beans in > the bag are actually black, and that my hypotheses was wrong (and, as Ben > noted, most are). Then I'll have to come up with another hypothesis, say > that the bag of white beans was removed for some reason. > > OK, admittedly this is stretching the bean example. But unless you are > reading my diagrams incorrectly, in both versions one begins at the rule > and ends at the case. > > This is exactly how I described my variation in the first long post in > this thread. I wrote: > > > In > *. . . * > my abductive variation o > f > the bean example > , > one needs in a > n important > way to see all three > phases > all-at-once-together (as Matthias Alexander might have put it > ; or as Ben Udell recently wrote, "you have to look at the inference as a > whole" > ), so that I*presume* a rule (3ns) is in effect, > that is, > that all the beans in this bag are white, *because* I see a handful of > white (1ns) beans > nearby which > I imagine to *possibly* be from that bag *were* a sample (2ns) to be > taken. > [ > As a further step in my inquiry, I > might > take that sample and find that all the beans are > , in fact, not white but > black > . > I now look for another explanation and > discover > that some of the bags of beans were earlier removed including the one > with all white beans > ; in this case my hypothesis turned out to be incorrect > . > ] > > > So, again, and as I remarked in another thread, in the bean example *both > *deduction and abduction commence with a rule, while induction concludes > with a rule. > > The Result is a character sampled for. > |> Rule de-/abduction begin @ & induction ends @ a Rule. > Case (a sample) induction begins here > > Best, > > Gary R > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
