But is this not simply *The surprising fact C is observed;... *
Best, Jerry R CP 5.189 On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Ben, Jon, List, > > One way to characterize the double aspect of inquiry is > by contrasting a “Surprise” that demands an Explanation > with a “Problem” that demands a Plan of Action. Here is > how I compared them in my work on Inquiry Driven Systems: > > http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Sys > tems_:_Part_1#1.3.5._Discussion_of_Formalization_:_Specific_Objects > > <QUOTE> > > I recognize inquiry as beginning with a surprising phenomenon or > a problematic situation, more briefly described as a surprise or > a problem, respectively. These are the kinds of moments that try > our souls, the instances of events that instigate inquiry as an > effort to achieve their own resolution. Surprises and problems > are experienced as afflicted with an irritating uncertainty or > a compelling difficulty, one that calls for a response on the > part of the agent in question: > > 1. A surprise calls for an explanation to resolve the uncertainty > that is present in it. This uncertainty is associated with a > difference between observations and expectations. > > 2. A problem calls for a plan of action to resolve the difficulty > that is present in it. This difficulty is associated with a > difference between observations and intentions. > > To express this diversity in a unified formula, both types of inquiry > begin with a delta (∆), a compact symbol that admits a spectrum of > expansions: debt, difference, difficulty, discrepancy, dispersion, > distribution, doubt, duplicity, or duty. > > Expressed another way, inquiry begins with a doubt about one's object, > whether this means what is true of a case, an object, or a world, what > to do about reaching a goal, or whether the hoped-for goal is really > good for oneself — with all that these questions lead to in essence, > in action, or in fact. > > </QUOTE> > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 3/2/2017 12:32 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > >> Yes, and I remember years ago when researching for the "Abductive >> reasoning" article at Wikipedia, I found papers >> treating abduction as a way to infer how one might achieve a >> pre-designated goal or end, as opposed to inferring how >> nature or people did arrive at an observed outcome or phenomenon. >> >> On 3/2/2017 8:45 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >> >>> Jon, >>> >>> Thanks for the reply. >>> >>> When it comes to the complementarity between thought and conduct, >>> information and control, it is often forgotten — and indeed it was >>> only by coincidence or synchronicity that a discussion elsewhere on >>> the web brought it back to mind — the same double aspect is already >>> evident in Aristotle's original formulation of apagoge or abduction, >>> where he gives two cases (1) a problem of description or explanation >>> and (2) a problem of construction or invention, as geometers call it. >>> >>> Here is a place where I discussed this before: >>> >>> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/02/17/abduction-deductio >>> n-induction-analogy-inquiry-3/ >>> >>> Aristotle’s apagoge, variously translated as abduction, reduction, or >>> retroduction, is a form of reasoning common to two types of situations. >>> It may be (1) the operation by which a phenomenon (a fact to grasp, to >>> understand) is factored through an explanatory hypothesis, or (2) the >>> operation by which a problem (a fact to make, to accomplish) is factored >>> through an intermediate construction. Aristotle gives one example of >>> each >>> type in Prior Analytics 2.25. I give some discussion here: >>> >>> Aristotle’s “Apagogy” : Abductive Reasoning as Problem Reduction >>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Functional_Logic_: >>> _Inquiry_and_Analogy#1.4._Aristotle.27s_.E2.80.9CApagogy >>> .E2.80.9D_:_Abductive_Reasoning_as_Problem_Reduction >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >> > -- > > inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
