BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
A problem I have with the assertion of the 'existence of "god' is
the lack of a clear definition of that term.
As I am an atheist, then, I cannot logically- never mind empirically
- conclude the reality of an a priori agency or even conscious agent
within our universe. But, I do not doubt that our universe operates
as a "MIND', with all the attributes of abduction, induction and
deduction that can be used to describe the functioning of a Mind.
That is, my view - and I consider that this is also Peirce's view -
is that the hylomorphic operation of matter and mind means that
matter is always organized in its Form, such that it can both
interact with other Forms of Matter, and replicate these Forms and
interactions in continuity. This organization of interactions and
continuity of material form is obviously a function of Mind. But
there is no other attribute that I can see within the Universe; no
agenda, no purpose [other than preventing dissipation of energy]; no
inherent morality etc.
Edwina
On Wed 08/09/21 12:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Gary R., List:
GR: Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis
there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific
question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of
yesterday.
There is no inconsistency here, since Peirce considered the
hypothesis of God's reality to be legitimately scientific in
accordance with his broad notion of the scope of science, which
includes metaphysics. "[T]he N.A. is the First Stage of a scientific
inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest Plausibility,
whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the self-controlled
growth of man's conduct of life" (CP 6.480, EP 2:446, 1908).
GR: ... the guess, or abduction, or retroduction is invariably from
experience.
Indeed, as we discussed on-List a couple of weeks ago
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[1]), although the historical order of inquiry is
abduction/retroduction followed by deduction and then induction,
there is a sense in which its logical order is induction followed by
abduction/retroduction.
CSP: The only end of science, as such, is to learn the lesson that
the universe has to teach it. In induction it simply surrenders
itself to the force of facts. But it finds, at once,--I am partially
inverting the historical order, in order to state the process in its
logical order--it finds I say that this is not enough. It is driven
in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its
instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern
science making his appeal to il lume naturale. (CP 5.589, EP 2:54-55,
1898)
Again, it is only "the well-prepared mind" that "has wonderfully
soon guessed each secret of nature" (CP 6.476, EP 2:444, 1908).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:10 AM Gary Richmond wrote:
Phyllis, List,
Strange, but I woke up this morning recalling that most of my
quotations yesterday were from the N.A., and the peculiar hypothesis
there being of the reality of God and not some strictly scientific
question put to nature, I began to question my entire analysis of
yesterday.
I still think 'retroduction' is an excellent term for inference from
scientific consequent to antecedent for the reason you gave today,
namely, the prefix, 're-'. suggesting a 'turning back' from effect to
cause. And using it for scientific inquiry would leave abduction free
for more general uses.
However, in one of the passages I quoted yesterday, Peirce comments
that "retroduction is from experience to hypothesis" (emphasis
added). In that sense, whether it is a guess as to what palette of
colors the painter thinks might best get her artistic vision across,
or the scientist's guess that such and such an hypothesis has some
likelihood of conforming to the question to nature asked by him and
so worth testing, or the peculiar, singular, and very vague question
regarding the reality of God, the guess, or abduction, or
retroduction is invariably from experience.
So, perhaps this exercise was all a terminological tempest in a
teapot. Still, I'm glad to have rehearsed it yesterday and today to
help clarify my own thinking about it. I just hope it wasn't too
tedious for you to go through that lengthy review with me.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
Links:
------
[1] https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-08/msg00341.html
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'gary.richm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
