John, Jon A, list, Yes, this last post of yours, John, makes a lot of sense to me such that I think we are fundamentally in agreement. I must admit that I was thrown a bit by your comment in one message that you put induction first and deduction last, but you've clarified that to some extent in remarking that within the cycle that you can start anywhere. This "you can start anywhere" still seems to me to be the case essentially for the growth of knowledge speaking *most generally*.
It would seem that my only point of disagreement-is that *sometimes*, in the wake of what I referred to as a "discrete complete inquiry" (adding "discrete" to Peirce's expression "complete inquiry') that for the purpose of that *kind* of inquiry, more precise,* that* inquiry, that the cycle *does* seem to reach a kind of completion even if only tentatively, and even if only temporarily. If not then why would Peirce even refer to the three stages of a "*complete* inquiry" (emphasis added)? This is to say, I think, that in *some* inquiries that after the inductive testing affirms the hypothesis that the knowledge gained can actually be "put to work," for example, in new technologies. Beyond that, it may even be that the particular scientific issue under investigation is (albeit fallibly) *settled*--perhaps for decades or longer (think, Isaac Newton). By "settled" I mean that for the scientific community of at least that era will hold that the affirmation of the hypothesis seems to reveal a "law of nature" (strongly suggested by the fact that, for example, powerful new technologies *can be* and *will* be and *are* developed). But looking at the growth of science and knowledge more generally, yes, for sure the cycle is in effect, so that even after hundreds of years Newtonian physics, for example, must yield (at least in part) to Einsteinian physics, and both (at least in part) to quantum theory. However, we should never forget that Newtonian physics is *not* *aufgehoben*. I look forward to exploring the other cycles you pointed to, John. 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* On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:21 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Gary R and Jon A, > > Gary > >> 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. >> > > Thank you. That is exactly the order in my drawing. Since > the cycle continues indefinitely, you can begin at any point. > (For a copy of the cycle, see http://jfsowa.com/talks/cogcyc.pdf ): > > 1. The abduction arrow (upper left). > > 2. Generates hypothesis (crystal at the top). > > 3. Implications (prediction on the right side). > > 4. Testing upon the world (lower right). > > 5. Observation and induction to evaluate prediction. > > 6. Results of induction go into the soup for further reuse. > > Jon > >> perception itself, has an abductive character in Peirce’s analysis >> > > Yes. Modern cognitive scientists agree -- even those who learned > the word 'abduction' without knowing anything about CSP. > > But Peirce also says that the abductions during perception are > not major insights. They are rather routine aspects of the > observation. The abductions that generate a new hypothesis or > theory are far from routine. > > Jon > >> induction for [Peirce] is more a final testing than initial >> conception stage >> > > Yes. That's Gary's point (steps 5 and 6 above). But when you > draw it as a cycle, no stage is "initial" or "final". > > I have been using versions of that cycle -- in one form or another > -- for years. And I keep discovering similar cycles from other > sources. I extracted a dozen slides from various talks I've > presented and put them together in one short sequence: > http://jfsowa.com/talks/cogcyc.pdf > > Slide 3: Quotations by Peirce, Whitehead, and Robert Frost to show > why I use the word 'soup' instead of a more "elegant" word. > > Slides 7 & 8: John Boyd's OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, > Act). I had never heard of John Boyd until somebody in one of > my lectures said "That looks like the OODA loop by John Boyd." > > Slide 9: The "Hierarchical Cognition Affect Architecture" by > the philosopher Aaron Sloman. > > Slide 10: The Albus Cognitive Architecture by James Albus, who was > a pioneer in using ideas from neuroscience to design AI systems. > > The similarities in these loops indicates that people who come > from totally different backgrounds can independently converge > on similar designs. Those slides contain URLs that point to > articles about Boyd and by Sloman and Albus. > > 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 > 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 .
