Jerry, List: A simple Google search confirms that there is nothing "problematic" or "radical" about the well-established definition of "ampliative reasoning" within the discipline of logic.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List, Jon: > > On Dec 14, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As Peirce explains in various places, ampliative reasoning produces > conclusions that are not already contained in or implied by the premisses. > As such, it encompasses both abductive/retroductive reasoning and inductive > reasoning, but not deductive reasoning. That being the case, *necessary > *reasoning > is by definition *not *ampliative but merely explicative. > > Your interpretations of the term “ampliative” is problematic. > > As I read the sentences, it appears that the logic of chemistry is > excluded. > > Can you be more explicit wrt the texts from which you draw such radical > conclusions? > > Do you believe that a conclusion (consequence) from a collection of > premises (antecedents) must necessarily be one syntactical interpretations > of the Latin root, ducere? (Consider, for example, the proposition, X > produces Y. If you wish, you may consider X and Y as n-dimensional vectors > or other mathematical structures.) > > Thanks for your thought - it is helpful. > > Cheers > > Jerry >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
