Helmut, list:
I think you’ve said something profound. You said: "So making an abduction is not pragmaticism (given that pragmaticism is deductive). But talking about abduction is, because it includes a deduction." I think listers will object to your “abduction is not pragmaticism because pragmaticism is deductive”. That’s so wrong, it isn’t even wrong. _______ You said: "With this view it may be not necessary to distinguish between pragmaticism and the pragmatic maxim concerning the matter of abduction." To which I would ask, what makes pragmaticism pragmaticism? Is it simply determinable based on *the* pragmatic maxim, which is about as useful as a theory of everything would be in terms of a prescriptive method for ascertaining truth about anything at all. _______ The most important issue I wish to bring to attention is your observation that making an abduction *is not* pragmaticism. Is the contrary so? That is, *is making an abduction pragmaticism*? Moreover, is making abduction without "beauty, upon moral virtue, or upon abstract truth, the three things that alone raise Humanity above Animality'" truly making abduction? This relates to what are the standards for pragmaticism, for the word was invented as a response to pragmatism. So, it cannot simply be pragmatism. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, List: > > I appreciate the comment, but I do not think that your example qualifies > as a genuine deduction. It is not *necessarily* true that "it is > possible that they are from the bag"; it might, in fact, be *impossible *for > some reason, presumably having nothing to do with the color of the beans. > In any case, again, hopefully my subsequent messages have clarified things, > at least somewhat. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear list members, >> I am not sure if this helps: I think, to say: "All beans from the bag are >> white, these beans are white, so these beans are from the bag" is an >> abduction. But to say: "All beans from the bag are white, these beans are >> white, so it is possible that they are from the bag" is sort of a >> deduction, isnt it, because the statement is necessarily true. So making an >> abduction is not pragmaticism (given that pragmaticism is deductive). But >> talking about abduction is, because it includes a deduction. With this view >> it may be not necessary to distinguish between pragmaticism and the >> pragmatic maxim concerning the matter of abduction. >> Best, >> Helmut >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
