Gary R., Jerry, List,
Let us apply the claim that hypothesis "is the formula of the acquirement of
secondary sensation--a process by which a confused concatenation of predicates
is brought into order under a synthetizing predicate" to the analysis of
hypothesis. (CP 2.712)
Notice what he
Jeffrey,
haha!! :) I stand corrected!
That was great,
J
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
> Jerry, Gary R., List,
>
> You say: "Relating it to the current query, where is feeling and
> sensation in beans and bags? There is no genuine
Jerry, Gary R., List,
You say: "Relating it to the current query, where is feeling and sensation in
beans and bags? There is no genuine doubt there."
Well, I grew up on a farm that had a big old white barn down in the field
constructed from hand-hewn wooden beams with enormous lofts for hay.
Gary, Jeffrey and list:
I had no intention of upsetting anyone but I wanted to raise some issues.
Gary, you said:
(Thirdness, Firstness, Secondness… three, one, two…)
|> (3ns), *Rule*, These beans are white,
(1ns), Result, *All the beans from this bag are white*;
(2ns),
Jerry, List,
You concluded your first response (before the second brief message as
addendum) by writing:
JR: My main query is why I should accept your explanation and not
theirs. This is why I think the bean example is so bad as to be
malicious. A novice doesn’t see a difference between one
Jerry, Gary F., List,
As you note, Jerry, Doug Anderson is simply quoting from what Peirce says in
the the section on Deduction, Induction and Hypothesis: "This sort of
inference is called making an hypothesis. It is the inference of a case from a
rule and a result." (CP 2.623) Do you see
Gary R., Jon S., list,
Thanks for the Wikipedia article remarks and the Tetrast link. I should
add that I did not make the edits that have appeared in the last few
years in the Wikipedia article on Peirce (or anywhere else on Wikipedia
for that matter, except for updating a link or two
Dear John, list -
I perfectly agree there are two quite different question here - the ideal,
conceptual question of the synthesis of e.g. subject and predicate in
propositions - and the actual, empirical question of how brains perform that
synthesis. Both of them are crucially important
List,
The tentative program for the John Dewey Society's Centennial Celebration
of *Democracy & Education* in Washington, DC this April has just been
announced. While I'm a member of the Society and am planning to attend the
events, one isn't required to join the organization to attend the
Hi Gary, Ben and List,
I appreciate the idea of trikonic and have read about the bean example,
which I dislike. Some authors flip Rule/Result/Case and Result/Rule/Case
for abduction. Are they isomorphic?
If I said they’re asymmetric, that it ought to be Result/Rule/Case and not
the other,
Jerry, list,
One approach which might help in understanding the bean example as I
believe Peirce imagined it is to think 'character' or 'quality' rather than
'result' since, as I've argued somewhere, 'result' literally really works
only for deduction.
*Deduction*:
3rd (1ns) *result*: all these
Hi Gary,
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly but in Anderson’s Evolution of
Peirce’s Concept of Abduction (p.148), he states:
Rule - All the beans from this bag are white.
Result - These beans are white.
.'. Case – These beans are from this bag. (2.623)
This is also repeated in
btw, in your response, would you mind commenting on whether
1ns, 2ns, 3ns follows Result (1ns), Rule (2ns), Case (3ns), please?
I think the above is correct and that the following is wrong:
Rule (1ns), Result (2ns), Case (3ns).
I also want to be clear about avoiding semantic conflations.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
