List, Phyllis Chiasson, who is not currently on the list, included these remarks on abduction/retroduction recently in a longer private message to me. Since her work in this area has recently been referenced on the list, I asked Phyllis if I might send these brief remarks to peirce-l, and she has given me permission to do so. Below her remarks I've added a link to the paper, "Abduction as an Aspect of Retroduction" and its Abstract.
Best, Gary R [Phyllis Chiasson in a private message dated 516/2016 made these comments.] Peirce's result, rule, case delineation is one of the reasons I wrote "Abduction as an Aspect of Retroduction," since the overarching vs surprise role he gives to abduction/retroduction throughout his writings sugests that it is two processes. The Result (C=the source of a surprise); The Rule ( A=The If-Then); The Case (exemplar C possibly = a sort of A). My guess is that he may have realized that he was dealing with two different processes and tried to get the two to fit as one so as not to violate his triad. I think NOT splitting this off may have prevented him and others from demonstrating the reticulating or web-like process (which Peirce says is paired with qualitative induction) that results from abduction versus the abductive-deductive-inductive (qualitative/quantitative) process required for the often grueling years long process of establishing an abductive inference into a hypothesis worthy of testing. Peirce actually suggested that the surprise of an abductive inference slides out of phenomenology and into logic for criticism (which would require the interplay of all of the inference types, as described in Neglected Argument) as one of his cotary principles. I think he also says that qualitative induction is required for abduction and that he once mistook this for abduction. We have a way of demonstrating this cotary abduction- with qualitative induction (as we do all of the proto-inference types of deduction- (with qualitative & quantitative induction) crude induction (replicative) and crude abduction (a random process without qualitative induction). We have tested this thousands of times since 1978 (and with a government funded test by the University of Oregon State Decision Sciences in 2002-03). *** Phyllis Chiasson. "Abduction as an Aspect of Retroduction" http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction The article was first published in *Semiotica* in a special edition on abduction: Chiasson, P. (2005) "Abduction as an aspect of Retroduction, pp. 223-242," Abduction: between subjectivity and objectivity. Semiotica Vol. 153-1/4 (2005) Special Issue. Queiroz, J. And F. Merrell (Guest Eds.). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Abstract: One of the most intriguing mysteries in American philosophy falls under the question: “Just what does Charles Sanders Peirce’s concept of abductive reasoning comprise?” Peirce used the terms “abduction” and “retroduction” interchangeably as names for a distinct form of logical inference, as well as for the method by which hypotheses are engendered. He considered his theory of abduction essential to (and even overarching of) his theory of pragmatism (Fann, 1970, p.47). Yet nearly a century after his death, Peirce’s concept of abduction is still poorly understood. This entry will explore the two distinct meanings of the intertwined concepts that Peirce variously called “abduction” and “retroduction.” One meaning refers to a distinct form of logical inference; the other, to the form of a deliberate and overarching logical method which incorporates abduction, deduction, and induction for its full performance. If modern researchers were to accept this proposed separation of Peirce¹s terminology (abduction and retroduction) to identify these different levels of concepts within his notion of abduction, we could finally begin the task of developing effective operational definitions for abduction and retroduction. These definitions would take us a long way toward solving the “mystery” about what Peirce meant by his concept of abduction and toward making “right reasoning” a teachable skill.
----------------------------- 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 .
