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.
