RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Jerry. Gary f. From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: 25-May-16 13:18 Gary F and list, I fail to see why you picked out that portion of the quote. So, if the logician looks to the ethicist for the aims of action... the ethicist

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

nt:* 24-May-16 22:29 > *To:* g...@gnusystems.ca > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns > > > > Gary F., List: > > > > gf: OK, I guess we have a case of polyversity here. To me, “experiencing

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

ultimate aim is … the logician has to accept the teaching of ethics in this regard.” Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 24-May-16 22:29 To: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inf

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., List: gf: OK, I guess we have a case of polyversity here. To me, “experiencing the irritation” of doubt IS a “particular *feeling* of dissatisfaction.” My point was that if you classify even something like playfulness as “a form of dissatisfaction,” “its being so consists merely in our

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary f and list, You said, “Critical consideration of ends is what ethics is all about” That’s not correct. Critical consideration of ends is the business of esthetics. Ethics follows esthetics. “Spiritedness faces justice and desire faces beauty.” “611. What does right reasoning

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, Ben, list, Js: I did not say anything about a particular feeling of dissatisfaction, only that we engage in inquiry when we are dissatisfied with our current knowledge; i.e., when we experience the irritation of (genuine) doubt. gf: OK, I guess we have a case of polyversity here. To

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., List: Gf: Are you claiming that everyone has to be aware enough of “the current state of their knowledge” to make such a judgment on it before undertaking any investigation? The fact that curiosity etc. *can be understood* as forms of dissatisfaction doesn’t imply that any feeling of

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Helmut, list, The analogy is: object - source sign (or representamen) - encoding interpretant - decoding recognizant - destination. I haven't discussed it in any detail at peirce-l in many years, and whatever I've written on it at my websites is rather old. So I'm not eager to launch into a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

*Then what is your meaning? When speaking of uninviting objects, I mean those which do not pass from one sensation to the opposite; inviting objects are those which do; in this latter case the sense coming upon the object, whether at a distance or near, gives no more vivid idea of anything in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., Jon A.S., list, I'm not sure why an argument has developed over whether human activity proceeds from dissatisfaction or positive desire, etc. Usually we regard those as various ways of talking about the same multifaceted phenomena. A desire for something implies dissatisfaction with

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Ben, list, "Recognizant" is a good term, I think. Recognizant and interpretant, like source and destination too, describe a continuity, which is a trait of thirdness. Maybe another example of fourism is Talcott Parsons AGIL- scheme, the four necessities of an acting system, esp. a social one:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Stephen Rose, List ~ "Dissatisfaction (or bemused acceptance) comes when things established (habits) are somehow not able to get the job done. Resolving that is among the gifts of conscious thinking." The habit-signs (3ns) of an object must reflect its quality/endowment-signs and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Dissatisfaction (or bemused acceptance) comes when things established (habits) are somehow not able to get the job done. Resolving that is among the gifts of conscious thinking. But there are many other gifts as well. ᐧ Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:58 AM,

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Helmut, list, My fours don't align with Peirce's four methods of inquiry. In https://tetrast2.blogspot.com/2013/04/methods-of-learning.html , you'll find Peirce's three inferior methods scattered around a large table at the post's end. Peirce's fourth method, the scientific method, is also

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Ben, list, Your fourism I find interesting, and it reminds me of Peirces four methods of fixating belief. Would that be justified, and, to loosely do the following connections: Will with tenacity, ability with authority, affectivity with a-priori, and cognition with the scientific method? Now,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon A.S., list, I discussed it many years ago on peirce-l. I don't know how much of what I said then I'd still say now. Generally I'm doubtful of ideas of the true as a species of the good or vice versa. I suspect that that's like trying to see momentum as a species of energy, or vice versa.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Ben U., List: You hinted at what I think is the key issue for me right now--if logic is a species of ethics (theory), then it seems to me that inquiry is a species of ingenuity (practice), rather than the other way around. With that in mind ... BU: For my own part, I already would do the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., List: Gf: Now I’m seeing the limitations of your hypothesis that ALL human endeavor is rooted in dissatisfaction. It seems to ignore more positive motivations such as curiosity, participation and playfulness in all its forms. The quest for knowledge can be much more than an escape from a

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Helmut, list, Yep, Pound was a fascist who, through the intercession of influential friends, managed to receive nothing more than commitment to an institution for the insane after broadcasting propaganda for the Axis in WW2 (unlike William Joyce, "Lord Haw-Haw", who got hanged). Oddly

RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

lli...@ukzn.ac.za> Cc: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns John, that is interesting to me, as I did not know, that reverse engineering is merely about the result or function, but not about the cod

Aw: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

gnusystems.ca Cc: 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns   List, when I read about the comparison of science / mathematics with engineering, the term "reverse-engineering" comes into my mind. Perhaps a hyp

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

edu> Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns List, when I read about the comparison of science / mathematics with engineering, the term "reverse-engineering" comes into my mind. Perhaps a hypothesis in physics is an attempt to reverse-engineer an

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

> Betreff: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns Jon,   Ben’s post has said a lot of what I would have said, so I’ll just add a few notes by insertion here …   From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 19-May-16 09:13   Gary F., List: Gf: Science

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, Ben’s post has said a lot of what I would have said, so I’ll just add a few notes by insertion here … From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 19-May-16 09:13 Gary F., List: Gf: Science as a discipline of engineering? That’s too much of a stretch for me

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., List: I re-read Chiasson's paper last night, and can definitely see some similarities; most notably, the idea of nesting one cycle of abduction/deduction/induction within another. However, my impression is that she is still talking mainly about inquiry (gaining knowledge), rather than

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Ben U., List: These are great comments, and I need to take more time than I have at the moment to digest and respond to them. Just a few quick hits for now. - Suggesting that science is a discipline of engineering is mainly intended to prompt reevaluation of the widespread notion that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

physics. Only more so. ☺ Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 17-May-16 21:27 To: Gary Richmond Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns Gary R., List: GR: As to the most recent discussion of abduction as it might relate

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., List: Science as a discipline of engineering? That’s too much of a stretch for me > ... It would be like claiming that mathematics is a discipline of > physics. Only more so. J > Well, I acknowledged that it is a provocative notion. The point is that science is pursued with the same

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 17-May-16 21:27 To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns Gary R., List: GR: As to the most recent discussion of abduction

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

“In the *1980s*, the study of abduction found a new home in Artificial Intelligence…Abduction has been used in a host of areas such as fault diagnosis…belief revision…as well as scientific discovery, legal reasoning: natural language understanding, and model-based reasoning… …Gabbay and Woods

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F., List: I suppose that it is possible; I would have to go back and re-read her paper, then give it some further thought. Inquiry vs. ingenuity is probably more a difference in emphasis than anything terribly substantive. CSP: "Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, is it possible that your “logic of ingenuity” is Phyllis Chiasson’s “retroduction”? Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 17-May-16 21:27 To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEI

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon S, List, Jon, I think I'm quasi-surprising myself and finding that I more or less agree with your somewhat "different approach." You wrote: Rather than Rule/Result/Case, I see it as abduction/deduction/induction in the sense that I have identified as the logic of ingenuity. The abductive

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: GR: As to the most recent discussion of abduction as it might relate not only to science but to the arts, Jon, Gary F, and I have momentarily at least moved the discussion rather far from logic as semeiotic, even into an entirely different branch of science, *applied science*, and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jerry R wrote: "So, what now of beans and bags? p's and q's, even..." Jerry, I can't, of course, be certain exactly what your not-quite-a-question is or even the basic intent if it, but at first blush it appears philosophically naive, especially when considered from the Peircean perspective.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

So, what now of beans and bags? p's and q's, even... Best, Jerry R On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Gary F, Jon S, List, > > Gary F. wrote: "maybe [artists] are driven to think this way by an > irrational urge to create, to do something that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary F, Jon S, List, Gary F. wrote: "maybe [artists] are driven to think this way by an irrational urge to create, to do something that hasn’t been done before, or show us something we haven’t seen before … Or even, perhaps, to show *themselves* that they can do something previously not

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon A.S. proposes that both inquiry and ingenuity are motivated more fundamentally by dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Agreed. And this could apply to artistic creation as well: the artist looks out at what’s been done in his or her field and thinks “There must be more to

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

ll, whatever- helpful or confusing this was...   Best, Helmut Gesendet: Montag, 16. Mai 2016 um 03:29 Uhr Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> An: g...@gnusystems.ca Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inferenc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jerry R., List: JR: Your situation with Jon S, that is, whether to start with the object or the sign, is a critical problem of philosophy. I do not understand this comment. Gary R. and I have recently been discussing whether abduction more properly begins with the Rule (3ns) or the Result; and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

oo is a cycle: his commissioned work gets performed, the audience >>> like what they hear or see, and this attracts more commissions and more >>> audiences. Once the cycle is established, it may continue even if parts of >>> it are missing — I think Mozart’s last three sym

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

logy between art and inquiry too far, for >> instance into the question of what role deductive inference plays in >> artistic creativity, but I do think this cyclic pattern runs very deep in >> all semiosis and in life itself. (Which reminds me that I first came across >> this patt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

across > this pattern and diagram in Robert Rosen’s book *Life Itself* — but > that’s another story.) > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 14-May-16 23:08 > *To:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Pei

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 14-May-16 23:08 To: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns Gary R., List: I am probably as big a fan of Mozart's music as the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon S, List, You wrote: Attributing the same vector to abduction as to a complete inquiry makes some sense in light of Phyllis Chiasson's suggestion to use the term "retroduction" for the latter, rather than the former (

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: I am probably as big a fan of Mozart's music as there is, but I am struggling to understand your assignment of Peirce's inference terminology to one of his compositions. Maybe I just need to ponder it for a bit. For now, I want to focus on what I think is the crux of our

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jerry R, list, Jerry asked: "In what sense are you using the term "complete" of *complete inquiry*? That is, are you using it colloquially or are you referring to something that ought to have a technical definition?" I'm away from my desk for the remainder of the weekend and I haven't any books,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jerry R, list, Jerry asked: "In what sense are you using the term "complete" of *complete inquiry*? That is, are you using it colloquially or are you referring to something that ought to have a technical definition?" I'm away from my desk for the remainder of the weekend and I haven't any books,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Hi Gary, Jon and list, In what sense are you using the term "complete" of *complete inquiry*? That is, are you using it colloquially or are you referring to something that ought to have a technical definition? Thanks, Jerry R On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Gary Richmond

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

​​ Jon, list, Jon wrote: "I would express hope that you enjoy the concert, but I already know that you will, because a Mozart piece is on the program." Although, surely *de gustibus non est disputandum*, for me, as regards music of the classical period, Mozart has no peer, and this particular

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon A and list, Yes, it's true that you told me off-list that A = antecedent and C = consequent. Yet, I persist in asserting that B = commens. So, why do I bother? Well, because I happen to think of all the consequences that result from believing that B represents the mind of the community in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: I would express hope that you enjoy the concert, but I already know that you will, because a Mozart piece is on the program. :-) GR: I don't really think Peirce attaches any particular significance to this order. I agree; but that being the case, how sure can we be that he

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, List, I'm running off to hear the New Orchestra present one of the chamber symphonies of Schoenberg and the Great C-minor Mass of Mozart at Carnegie Hall in a very few minutes, so I'll just drop a comment or two here for now and try to say more (and add some textual citations when I get a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: Are we perhaps conflating feeling with emotion? Peirce consistently associates the former with Firstness, but is that appropriate for the latter? An *actual *emotion seems more like an example of Secondness, an experience that occurs over time. Regarding CP 1.485, I agree that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jerry R.: Setting aside whether it is proper to classify the formulation in CP 5.189 as a syllogism--Peirce defined a "conditional syllogism" in CP 2.571 as "a syllogism containing a conditional premiss, especially the Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens, although some logicians refuse to these

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: GR: At the moment I am imagining that they might have a rather direct bearing on the psychology of inquiry ("a feeling of surprise;" "a feeling of satisfaction"). Does "feeling," understood in this context as a manifestation of Firstness, entail psychology? Of course, Peirce was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon S wrote: "The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief." (CP 5.374) The first phase of inquiry is abduction, which begins when an established habit of expectation (3ns) is confounded by an act of observation (2ns), which produces a feeling of surprise (1ns). The

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

https://woodybelangia.com/tag/dialectic/ (4) *Noetic wholeness* (*noesis*) is the transcendent goal of all thinking, the satisfaction of *eros* in true knowledge. *Noesis* is the full integration of doubt and belief. All relevant questions are answered and satisfied, without remainder. hth, J

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: Quick thought ... "The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief." (CP 5.374) The first phase of inquiry is abduction, which begins when an established habit of expectation (3ns) is confounded by an act of observation (2ns), which produces a feeling of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, List, Thanks for the additional Peirce quotations. I'll be mulling over them (all of which I'm familiar with) for some time, but now in the light of your comments. I don't know whether or not "we're any closer to being on the same page regarding abduction," but since, as Peirce notes,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: I understand your point about the Rule coming first in deduction, and while I am still not 100% convinced that this is truly *necessary*, I am content to let it pass and focus on abduction. If I have pushed you hard on the latter, then Jerry R. also deserves credit for repeatedly

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon S, List, Jon wrote: [re: deduction] "Hence, that sequence (3ns/2ns/1ns) is to be preferred, even if it is not strictly required." Since we seem to be on pretty much the same page regarding deduction, I would probably leave your comment alone, that is, not take issue with your remark that,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

JAS, List: Yes, I was using "surprising result" interchangeably with "surprising fact". By "next" or "new category" I refer to the new category in the process of categorization generally described by Peirce in CP 1.490 and CP 5.72 (note, I am *NOT* using "categories in the sense of the three

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Mike, List: Sorry, I am not following you. Peirce refers to a "surprising fact," not a "surprising result"; and he typically categorizes facts under Secondness, not Thirdness. What do you mean by "next category" and "new category"? What do you mean by "potentials" in this context? Thanks, Jon

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

JAS, List: On 5/6/2016 4:54 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: Gary R., List: . . . So besides having three different conclusions, the three forms of inference have three different starting points--Rule/Case/Result for deduction, Case/Result/Rule for induction, and Result/Rule/Case for abduction.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary, Jon, list: I’m really enjoying your latest exchange. Nice questions and responses! Here is something I found today in “Encounters and Reflections, Conversations with Seth Benardete”: *Seth*: It goes back to a point in the preface to Hegel’s *Phenomenology*, about the distinction

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: Thanks for your patience and persistence. You make a good case (no pun intended) that the logic of deduction is more clearly presented by giving the Rule first, followed by the Case as something that necessarily falls under it; and that this was one of the specific points that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, List, At CP 2.619, after commenting that "It is capable of strict proof [. . .] that all arguments whatever can be put into [*Barbara*]" Peirce gives a rather tortured example of an induction taking that form, putting it in the Procrustean bed of *Barbara*. These beans are two-thirds white,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

o me in this case. > > > > Auke > > > > *Van:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Verzonden:* donderdag 5 mei 2016 22:41 > *Aan:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *CC:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Onderwer

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: I do not believe that we are talking past each other, just sharing thoughts from our different perspectives. I acknowledge that CP 2.623 presents the Rule as the first premiss of both Deduction and Hypothesis. However, does Peirce say anything there--or anywhere else, for that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: Just a few quick observations for the moment ... - According to CP 5.189, abduction begins with the Result, the surprising fact (C); not with the Rule, the circumstances of its occurrence (B), which comes second. - Logically, the sequence of the two premisses makes no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Jon, List, You wrote: "how the three forms of inference themselves are presented in CP 2.623. That text seems to indicate that ANY reasoning process that concludes with a Rule is (by definition) induction." That is true. So, for all 3 inference patterns: Result, 1ns |> Rule, 3ns Case, 2ns

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

nderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns Gary R., List: Perhaps we are simply coming up against a limitation of not only the bean example, but also how the three forms of inference themselves are presented in CP 2.623. That text seems to indicate that ANY reaso

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns

Gary R., List: Perhaps we are simply coming up against a limitation of not only the bean example, but also how the three forms of inference themselves are presented in CP 2.623. That text seems to indicate that ANY reasoning process that concludes with a Rule is (by definition) induction.