Jon S., list,
As far as I can tell, satisficing is just a third way between
optimization and bare-minimum constraint satisfaction (any feasible
solution). Same forest of decision-making and trade-offs; different tree.
Herbert Simon: "...decision makers can satisfice either by finding
optimum solutions for a simplified world, or by finding satisfactory
solutions for a more realistic world. Neither approach, in general,
dominates the other, and both have continued to co-exist in the world of
management science." Even the general statement is of a setting for
trade-offs.
Best, Ben
On 3/2/2017 4:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Jon A., List:
It was also Herbert Simon who (rightly, in my view) observed that
design in general, and engineering in particular, is a matter of
satisficing rather than optimization--"good enough" rather than "best
possible."
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>
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Ben, List,
I think it was Herbert Simon who I first recall lumping
engineering under the heading of the “design sciences”
but I don't know if that usage was original with him.
Coincidentally, again, if you believe in such things,
I've been reviewing a number of old discussions on the
Peirce List in preparation for getting back to my study
of Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives and there are a few
places where the exchanges with Bernard Morand branched
off onto the classification of signs.
Here is the initial exchange:
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_10
<http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_10>
Bernard gives his Table of the “Ten Divisions of Signs” here:
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_13
<http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_13>
Most of you know this is not really my thing — I prefer
to think of these taxonomies or typologies as detailing
the “Aspects or Modes of Sign Functionality” as opposed
to mutually exclusive and exhaustive ontologies of signs.
So I just submit them FWIWTWIMC ...
Regards,
Jon
-----------------------------
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 .
