Jon A., Jon S., list,
Jon A. you wrote,
In practice the idea of satificing functioned more as a heuristic
strategy, not unlike Polya's mental maneuvers, and it often served
as a psychological jog or nudge for getting unstuck from the mires
of perfectionism that often block inquiry.
[End quote]
That's the feeling that I got in reading up on it (satisficing). So
mainly practical applications, rather than theoretical deductive maths,
seek satisficing as a third or middle way (between seeking an optimum
and seeking just any or every feasible solution), although I'd guess
that some deductive and inductive formalisms for satisficing can be, and
have been, devised.
In any case, in the broad sense, optimization theory (longer known as
linear and nonlinear programming) is considered to include theory of
(multi-)constraint satisfaction (seeking the set of feasible solutions),
since optimization generally involves finding the set of feasible
solutions and selecting the optimal one(s), and to focus just on
feasible solutions is to treat them as equi-optimal.
In the end — be they deductive, or "inverse" and inductive, and be they
rigorous, or informal and heuristical — optimization, constraint
satisfaction, and satisficing still seek to infer what would be the
results of _/varied/_ trials (as opposed, but only generically, to
probability theory and inferential statistics seeking to infer what
would be the results of _/repeated/_ trials).
Thus optima, satisfactory solutions, and feasible solutions are all
relevant to decision-making in terms of trade-offs, in design and
so-called ruling arts in general as well as in the design aspects of
engineering and of many other things. Despite the terminology of
"optima" and "feasible solutions" (rooted, correct me if I'm wrong, in
the field's early growth out of practical applications in WWI after
Peirce died), it's applicable to any decision processes, not just human
or societal ones. Physical laws sometimes mandate an "optimal" course
but it is not called that, as in the extremization (usually a
minimization) of action in the classical limit. Extremization as an
operation in calculus and applicable to physics has long been around, of
course, along with the calculus of variations.
Design and (so-called) ruling arts should not simply be applied
optimization, just as engineering and productive arts should not simply
be applied probability and statistics, and aesthetic art should not
simply be applied information theory (and no effort to make it so has
occurred, so far as I know). But there do seem rough correlations that
seem to reflect how those arts differ from one another, even as they aid
one another in interplay. The distinctions among those arts are not
particularly Peircean when it comes to so-called "ruling" vs.
"productive", as far as I know, but they are traditional, and are part
of the terrain that Peircean classification addresses or will address.
Best, Ben>
On 3/4/2017 10:48 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Thread:
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00003.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00005.html
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00009.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00022.html
BU:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00025.html
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00028.html
BU:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00030.html
BU:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00035.html
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00039.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00041.html
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00042.html
ET:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00043.html
BU:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-03/msg00048.html
Ben, Jon, all ...
Getting whelmed over by the garden of forking paths now and
long ago lost the ability to jump on my horse and ride off
in all directions at once, so I'll just take this one off
the top and try to work backward.
In practice the idea of satificing functioned more as a heuristic
strategy,
not unlike Polya's mental maneuvers, and it often served as a
psychological
jog or nudge for getting unstuck from the mires of perfectionism that
often
block inquiry.
Regards,
Jon
On 3/2/2017 6:55 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
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 .
