Jon, is it possible that your “logic of ingenuity” is Phyllis Chiasson’s “retroduction”?
Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17-May-16 21:27 To: Gary Richmond <[email protected]> Cc: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns Gary R., List: GR: As to the most recent discussion of abduction as it might relate not only to science but to the arts, Jon, Gary F, and I have momentarily at least moved the discussion rather far from logic as semeiotic, even into an entirely different branch of science, applied science, and perhaps even beyond that to how the findings of science might relate to the fine arts. Engineering is not explicitly mentioned here, but I get a little agitated by the common characterization of it as "applied science." In fact, my draft concluding article on "The Logic of Ingenuity" suggests--somewhat provocatively--that it might be more accurate to describe science as a discipline of engineering. This stems from what I said earlier, prompted by Peirce's words in "The Fixation of Belief"--dissatisfaction and satisfaction are even more fundamental than doubt and belief as the motivation and goal of not just inquiry, but human endeavors of any kind. In other words, although I started out thinking of ingenuity as an adaptation of inquiry, I now wonder if perhaps it is really the other way around. 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>
----------------------------- 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 .
