Gary R., list,
I like your post! “All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our wits, must invoke the aid of Gods and Goddesses and pray that our words may be acceptable to them and consistent with themselves.” ~*Timaeus* *Ronna:* Did he think he was doing what Strauss was doing? *Seth:* That never came up. I do remember him saying, toward the end of his life, "Oh, I now realize you always knew this. But I've just come to recognize how central the question *'Quid sit deus?'*is." one three two.. quid sit deus.. what is God?.. rather, what would God be? Best, jerry R On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon A, John, list, > > Jon wrote: It’s good to remember that observation, perception itself, has > an abductive character in Peirce’s analysis and induction for him is more a > final testing than initial conception stage. > > I was trying to make something akin to this point in quoting Peirce on the > three stages of a complete discrete inquiry. As I see it, for such an > inquiry the order, as Peirce argues in the *Neglected Argument* and > elsewhere is, first, hypothesis formation (abduction), deduction of the > implications of the hypothesis for the purpose of devising a test of it, > and, once a test has been devised, finally the inductive experimental > testing is made. Lessons are learned. So, in *that* context, putting > induction first and deduction last, as John's knowledge soup diagram would > have it, seems just plain wrong. > > Admittedly, what I just called a "discrete inquiry" is always made in the > context of the knowledge which already exists (the "knowledge soup") as > well as the life experience of the inquirer and the scientific community in > which he works. Yet, as Jon just remarked, even for a discrete inquiry > "observation, > perception itself, has an abductive character in Peirce’s analysis ." > > So, as I'm presently seeing it, there is most certainly a kind of cycle, > as both John and Gary F have argued, in the growth of knowledge more > generally. But for any *given* inquiry, the order is as Peirce gives it > in the N.A.: abduction then deduction then induction. As Jon just put it, > "Yes, > it’s wheels upon wheels but some steps are logically more primitive in the > recursion." > > Best, > > Gary R > > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> John, List ... >> >> It’s good to remember that observation, perception itself, has an >> abductive character in Peirce’s analysis and induction for him is more a >> final testing than initial conception stage. Yes, it’s wheels upon wheels >> but some steps are logically more primitive in the recursion. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com >> >> > On Oct 24, 2017, at 8:11 AM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I received an offline message that asked where learning occurs >> > in the cycle of observation, induction, abduction, revision, >> > deduction, and action. >> > >> > Answer: at every turn of every cycle. >> > >> > John >> > >> > -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> > >> >> But your cycle implies that one person just keeps going around it, >> re-enforcing what he already assumed (finding confirmation). >> > >> > No. There is learning at every turn of every cycle. >> > >> >> Where is the depiction of learning? >> > >> > In the pot of knowledge soup! It contains everything in memory, >> > conscious or unconscious. Every new observation, induction, >> > abduction, revision, and deduction goes into the pot. >> > >> > Every time induction makes a generalization or strengthens >> > a habit, the new version goes into the kn. soup. >> > >> > Every time abduction forms a new hypothesis, it is added >> > as a revision or extension to the previous knowledge. >> > >> > Every time deduction generates a prediction, it is tested >> > by action, and the result (success or failure) adjusts >> > the contents of the kn. soup. >> > >> > Peirce rarely talked about memory and revision, because it's >> > so obvious. He did it all the time. His vast writings and >> > revisions testify to its importance. As I said, everything >> > in that cycle is explicitly or implicitly derived from his >> > writings. His MSS are a partial record of what he was learning >> > throughout his life. >> > >> > John >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
