Jon S, List, You wrote:
Attributing the same vector to abduction as to a complete inquiry makes some sense in light of Phyllis Chiasson's suggestion to use the term "retroduction" for the latter, rather than the former ( http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction ). I am *very* familiar with Phyllis' work as I've read most of it, and I approve of a great deal of it, most especially that relating to pragmatism and education. In fact, Phyllis is a friend such that, to give one example, since she was quite ill at the time of the Peirce Centennial Conference at UMass, Lowell a couple of years ago and unable to attend it, she asked me to present her invited paper, which I did (it was most excellent, imo, and very well-received). I will, however, continue to consider it an error to conflate abduction with a complete inquiry. So, as you wrote: JS: I am not sure if any of these observations should carry much weight, but there they are. Perhaps we will finally just have to agree to disagree. I think that's wise. 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* On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > wrote: > Gary R., List: > > I am probably as big a fan of Mozart's music as there is, but I am > struggling to understand your assignment of Peirce's inference terminology > to one of his compositions. Maybe I just need to ponder it for a bit. For > now, I want to focus on what I think is the crux of our disagreement here. > > GR: In such places he offers abduction as the mirror of deduction, both > inference patterns *commencing at the rule ...* > > This is what bothers me, right here--abduction DOES NOT commence at the > Rule! Rather, per CP 5.189, it commences with the observation of a > surprising fact--the Result. Only then do we start *searching* for a > Rule that would explain it when combined with the conjecture that what we > observed is a Case under that Rule. Peirce's bean example makes this very > clear--we come upon these white beans on the table, go looking for a bag in > the room that contains *only* white beans, find one, and guess that these > beans came from that bag. > > Your alternative bean example, on the other hand, does not fit this > pattern at all. In fact, it seems much more like induction than abduction > to me--by taking samples from the bag, you are now *testing* the > hypothesis that all of the beans in it are white. What surprising fact did > you observe that prompted this particular conjecture in the first place? > > Admittedly, one reason why I lean toward Result/Rule/Case for abduction is > because I simply find it more aesthetically satisfying to keep the > propositions in the same sequence for all three inference forms. If we > then present them in the order of a complete inquiry, some interesting > patterns are evident. > > Abduction = Result/Rule/Case > Deduction = Rule/Case/Result > Induction = Case/Result/Rule > > * | Abduction | Deduction | Induction |* > *Abduction | Result | Rule | Case | * > *Deduction | Rule | Case | Result | * > *Induction | Case | Result | Rule | * > > Notice also that each inference form now starts with the proposition that > has the same categoriality--abduction, Result, 1ns; deduction, Rule, 3ns; > induction, Case, 2ns. Attributing the same vector to abduction as to a > complete inquiry makes some sense in light of Phyllis Chiasson's suggestion > to use the term "retroduction" for the latter, rather than the former ( > http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction > ). > > I am not sure if any of these observations should carry much weight, but > there they are. Perhaps we will finally just have to agree to disagree. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - 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 .
