Jon, Gary F, List, Gary F wrote:
My tentative hypothesis is that *retroduction* is the better name because the *retro-* prefix suggests a backward or *returning* movement of thought. This seems to me related to Peirce’s analogy between causality and reasoning: just as we think of *cause* > *effect* as a forward motion in time, we think of deductive reasoning as a forward movement from premisses to conclusion. *Retroduction*, though, is works *back* from the observed effect to the hypothesized cause. And Jon wrote in response: In Peirce's late writings, he is consistently inconsistent about whether to use "abduction" or "retroduction" when referring to the kind of reasoning that he usually calls "hypothesis" in his early writings. As you [Gary F] note, he goes with "retroduction" in the Cambridge Lectures of 1898 and "A Neglected Argument" in 1908. However, he reverts to "abduction" in the Harvard and Lowell Lectures of 1903, even including it in the title of the final presentation of each series. Personally, I prefer "retroduction," both for the reasons that you give below and because "abduction" is much more familiar to most English-speakers as a synonym for kidnapping. This is an interesting terminological case in which, as Jon wrote, Peirce "is consistently inconsistent about whether to use "abduction" or " retroduction" when referring to the kind of reasoning that he usually calls "hypothesis" in his early writings." But in his "early writings" 'hypothesis' is *always* used within the context of scientific inquiry. Yet it seems to me that there is also in Peirce the suggestion that 'abduction' can *also *refer to certain other kinds of 'guesses' including those which artists in various artistic disciplines are always making, especially -- but hardly exclusively -- as they begin a work. Such 'guesses' might include in planning a new work (a novel, or a building, or a sculpture, etc.), say, for a painting: the subject matter being considered, the size of the canvas appropriate to that subject matter, the choice of materials (watercolor or oil; on canvas or wood, etc.), the colors to be employed in order to bring about the intended effect, etc. In any case, that is how I know some folk in the arts and humanities, sometimes these days actually informed by Peirce's use of the term, are thinking about 'abduction' (and, btw, I think 'abduction' is often enough used in this way as *not* easily to be confused with its more familiar use as "a synonym for kidnapping," as Jon suggested in the quotation above). So my tentative conclusion regarding the terminological question is, I believe, rather similar to Gary F's (with a slight addition). As I think of it, *abduction* is a term which can be employed both in science *or *in the arts, etc., to mean 'a kind of 'guess' which might lead to (a) a sort of 'truth' in an artwork or (b) a *possible* tentative 'explanation' as science inquires into some phenomenon within nature (it will, of course, need to be tested). In science I believe it ought best be referred to, as it ordinarily is, as a hypothesis. On the other hand, *retroduction* ought, in my opinion, be limited to a more formal act of scientific 'guessing' as it "works *back* from the observed effect to the hypothesized cause" as Gary F succinctly put it. However, in reading that snippet just now, "hypothesized" sounded to me to be, perhaps, redundant, which is to say, that in Peirce's understanding, I believe, scientific hypothesis formation *is* retroductive. But on second thought, I think that Gary F is correct: that *retroduction (hypothesis formation) leads to actual hypotheses being formed*, some of which might eventually be tested. Jon also wrote: As you may know, Phyllis Chiasson takes a different tack, claiming <http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction> that abduction "refers to a distinct form of logical inference," while retroduction is "the form of a deliberate and overarching logical method which incorporates abduction, deduction, and induction for its full performance." This solution is admittedly clever, but I find it utterly unpersuasive because I am not aware of any text where Peirce uses both terms, as he surely would have if that had been what he intended. Moreover, "A Neglected Argument" is unambiguous in identifying retroduction as "the First Stage of Inquiry," followed by deduction and then induction (CP 6.468-473, EP 2:440-442, 1908). I agree that Phyllis Chiasson's guess (abduction? does it apply to philosophy as well?) which Jon quotes above, that retroduction is "the form of a deliberate and overarching logical method which incorporates abduction, deduction, and induction for its full performance," is certainly clever, but finally misguided, especially, as Jon notes, since as late as 1908, in "A Neglected Argument," Peirce clearly makes retroduction "the First Stage of Inquiry," followed by deduction and then induction." In any event, this is how I've come to look at the matter and how I employ the terms 'abduction' and 'retroduction' in my own thinking and writing. Indeed, more and more I tend to use 'abduction' primarily in consideration of art creation, and I use 'retroduction' and 'hypothesis' exclusively in consideration of science. So, as I see it, in sum: *abduction* is a general term for a certain kind of 'guessing' in the arts and (possibly) the sciences, while *retroduction *specifically and exclusively applies to that familiar kind of scientific thinking which works backwards, from effect to cause, and which, I believe, ought best be thought of as 'hypothesis *formation*." In other words, an *hypothesis* is the possible result of a mental act of *retroduction*. Best, Gary R "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary F., List: > > I changed the subject line only because the subject being addressed had > changed, and I am happy to resume the discussion of "Communicating an Idea." > > In Peirce's late writings, he is consistently inconsistent about whether > to use "abduction" or "retroduction" when referring to the kind of > reasoning that he usually calls "hypothesis" in his early writings. As you > note, he goes with "retroduction" in the Cambridge Lectures of 1898 and "A > Neglected Argument" in 1908. However, he reverts to "abduction" in the > Harvard and Lowell Lectures of 1903, even including it in the title of the > final presentation of each series. Personally, I prefer "retroduction," > both for the reasons that you give below and because "abduction" is much > more familiar to most English-speakers as a synonym for kidnapping. > > As you may know, Phyllis Chiasson takes a different tack, claiming > <http://www.commens.org/encyclopedia/article/chiasson-phyllis-abduction-aspect-retroduction> > that abduction "refers to a distinct form of logical inference," while > retroduction is "the form of a deliberate and overarching logical method > which incorporates abduction, deduction, and induction for its full > performance." This solution is admittedly clever, but I find it utterly > unpersuasive because I am not aware of any text where Peirce uses both > terms, as he surely would have if that had been what he intended. > Moreover, "A Neglected Argument" is unambiguous in identifying retroduction > as "the First Stage of Inquiry," followed by deduction and then induction > (CP 6.468-473, EP 2:440-442, 1908). > > By the way, you mentioned yesterday that the Lowell Lectures have now been > published. I believe that Volume 2 of *Logic of the Future* only > includes various drafts of the first five lectures that discuss existential > graphs, not the last three, so the transcriptions on your website will > continue to be a valuable resource. > > Thanks, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:17 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jon, I understand your motive for changing the subject line, but I’ve >> changed it back because I’d like to return to the subject of “Communicating >> an Idea.” (Common sense should tell us that any study of “certain aspects >> of Peirce’s thought” will include some aspects (or “objects”) and exclude >> others. If I accuse *your* study of being “corseted” because it doesn’t >> include the aspects that feature prominently in *my* study, I am talking >> nonsense, and my complaint hardly deserves a response.) >> >> Getting back to communication of ideas, I think one of Peirce’s major >> contributions to the logic of inquiry as the idea of *abduction*. But >> sometime late in the 1890s, Peirce decided that a better term for the >> concept was *retroduction* (RLT 141, CP 1.65, NEM 4.331), and that was >> the term he used in his 1908 “Neglected Argument” (and several unpublished >> late works). My tentative hypothesis is that *retroduction* is the >> better name because the *retro-* prefix suggests a backward or >> *returning* movement of thought. This seems to me related to Peirce’s >> analogy between causality and reasoning: just as we think of *cause* > >> *effect* as a forward motion in time, we think of deductive reasoning as >> a forward movement from premisses to conclusion. *Retroduction*, though, >> is works *back* from the observed effect to the hypothesized cause. This >> connects it with the circular causality >> <http://gnusystems.ca/TS/cls.htm#nlincaus> which seems to be >> characteristic of life itself. I’ll follow up on that with more detail if >> anyone wants me to. >> >> Gary f. >> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
