Gary R, I think yours is a very astute and context-sensitive way of communicating the idea abduction/retroduction. To a logician, I guess it would make “abduction” a “looser” or more vague term than “retroduction”. Or we might say that abduction is more preconscious than retroduction. This approach seems to be supported by Peirce’s remark that “I perform an abduction when I so much as express in a sentence anything I see,” that “Not the smallest advance can be made in knowledge beyond the stage of vacant staring, without making an abduction at every step.” The context and source of that remark is here <http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/xpt.htm#abdct> in my book (which I’ve just slightly revised to reflect what I’m learning from this conversation). Anyway, I think the core idea is the same regardless of whether we call it abduction or retroduction.
Gary f. } Entering is the source, and the source means from beginning to end. [Dogen] { <http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the transition From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: 14-Jun-20 17:41 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating An Idea 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
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.