Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Clark, An excellent & clear statement. I agree with all points you take up. Kirsti Clark Goble kirjoitti 10.5.2016 00:33: On May 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics, and science, which are considerable

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Jon A., In one of your replies you mentioned applying a little extra charity in reading Peirce because the charity gets rewarded. So I thought that you might follow up with remarks more specific. Now you seem to be making a vague generic defense of disagreeing with Peirce, which is hardly

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

> On May 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics, > and science, which are considerable enough for several lifetimes, > and I read him the same way I read other thinkers in those areas. > Maybe some people read

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Thread: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18807 ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18808 GR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18810 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18811

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Tom, list, Your claim, if true, would come as a big surprise to Peirce and everybody who has seriously studied abductive inference in particular and inference in general. By an informal transference of sense, "abduction" can refer to the abductive conclusion, likewise as "deduction" can

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

List ~ > * The surprising fact, C, is observed. > * But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. > * Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. All of that I agree with. But it describes the activity that results in abduction. It is not a logical abduction. Abduction is the

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Peircers, I've been trying to sort through the explosion of topics and tangents that have arisen over the past month -- disruptions in my actual and virtual office spaces have made it hard for for me to keep track -- I still have the general impression that many things that used to be relatively

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Jerry, Reviewing the many tangents of the last week -- I can't really think of anything better than to repeat the advice that I gave below. Regards, Jon On 4/13/2016 5:01 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: Jon, list: I should have been more moderate in my response. Given: The surprising fact, C, is

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Peircers, Back in the saddle after a few days travel. Let me see if I can remember where we were. Speaking of saddles, that cowboy-wrangler metaphor from my last post was not saying what I wanted it to say -- the word “wrangler” clangs a bit much -- so I adjusted it slightly for my blog

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Jerry, I can't exactly tell what what you're hanging on. If you see Peirce's world in that grain of sand, and pragmatic heaven in that wild flower, okay, maybe that's as good a place as any to start. But verbal wrangling can get a person only so far, even for a wiry cowpoke like C.S. Peirce,

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

“*Whether this be a correct account of the matter or not…that all conceptions must be given substantially in perception, three objections will be started. Namely, in the first place, it may be said that even if this be the normative form of abduction, the form to which abduction ought to

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Inquiry Blog: • http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/04/definition-and-determination-11/ Peirce List: •• http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18569 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18634

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Hi all, Since the matter at hand is, “By “Peirce's definition of a sign relation” I really mean the select number of his *best* definitions, not mere descriptions…” ~Awbrey Which is better, the “2 variants from NEM 4” or CP 5.189? I determine it’s CP 5.189 *because*: “*Every inquiry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Hi Jon and list, How about a test of our understanding? If there is one statement that can determine what is meant by Peirce’s theory of abduction, then is the following an over or under-determination? Is it exact and complete? Is it perfect? Why or why not? The surprising fact, C,

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Inquiry Blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/04/04/definition-and-determination-11/ Peirce List: JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18569 JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18598 Jeff, List, Let me go back to this point in the