Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

List: I fear that the distinction between connotation and denotation is being lost in this discussion. Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > Thread:http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18467 >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Tom, Vegas?! Lucky you. Weather here in Chicago is cool. :) Sure, that'll work. But ultimately, we're talking about a method to truth. For me, what you propose is perfectly fine because it's a matter of putting words to phenomenon. Also, when talking semiotic, we should be talking about

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry -- Forwarded message -- From: Tom Gollier <tgoll...@gmail.com<mailto:tgoll...@gmail.com>> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inq

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

most posts in this thread. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Tom Gollier Cc: Peirce List Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry Tom, Jon, list, If I may, and making

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

PM, Tom Gollier <tgoll...@gmail.com> wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Tom Gollier <tgoll...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, > Inquiry > To: Jon A

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Jerry, Why not just a rule of thumb like there's usually a coolness in the air before it rains. (Here in Las Vegas there's a burst of windiness.) But then it's just a straight-forward deduction to get to the rain. Tom - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

List, Tom: Perhaps someone here knows more details about these distinctions in the forms of logic. A few comments about the history of logic may be helpful to some readers. The modern names of logics are remote from the “suppositio” of the middle ages. My understanding is that CSP’s usage

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Hi list, In a sense, Peircean semiotic is Socratic dialectic taken to its limit (art of conversation or of friendly dispute in which justice/truth/goodness/Thirdness is the motivation, which are slave to First and Second). There are three minds operating during the inquiry; the utterer,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Jerry, List, A very good question. Susan Awbrey and I tried our hands at answering the “What Next?” question in the medium of analyzing Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example: https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry Relevant excerpt below: The Pattern and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

ociate > > University of KwaZulu-Natal > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, 12 March 2016 4:30 AM > > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List; Clark Goble > *Subject:*

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

y out inquiry responsibly. > > > > The simple question arises: > > If an abductive step is taken by the inquirer, then what? > > > > For example, say that a sinsign and its legisigns and qualisigns provide > the informative extension to generate an index, how does one take this > abductive object a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

; Peirce List; Clark Goble Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry John, To me, we are talking about whether Feyerabend or Peirce can offer a definite suggestion on how to proceed if we are frozen with respect to advancing on a problem. To say there’s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

ohn Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry John, Clark, List: On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:59 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: List, Another point that is often overlooked in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

rk Goble <cl...@lextek.com>, Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry Hi John, I agree with your conclusion of the paper (although I did not read the body). I was objecting to this portion of your post: &

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 09 March 2016 11:02 AM To: John Collier Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry Hi all, It seems paradoxical to me that a Peircean doesn't believe in Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

ctive, what information is needed to > extend (in the Aristotelian sense of intensional logic) the index to the > (telelogical?) goal of the inquirer? > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > *From:* Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com <cl...@lextek

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

04 March 2016 12:35 AM > To: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry > > > On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net > <mailto:jawb...@att.net>> wrote: > > Let me just say again that abd

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

anner). > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate > > University of KwaZulu-Natal > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] > *Sent:* Friday, 04 March 2016 12:35 AM > *To:* Peirce

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Research Associate University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Friday, 04 March 2016 12:35 AM To: Peirce List Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey <j

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Hi Jon, list, Despite your noble efforts to address it, the problem continues to persist. It appears it doesn't even matter that you're right. What would you say is a best strategy for fixing the problem of communicating Peirce correctly other than what you or anyone else is doing? Are they

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > Let me just say again that abduction is not “inference to the best > explanation”. > That gloss derives from a later attempt to rationalize Peirce's idea and it > has > led to a whole literature of misconception. Abduction

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

Hi everyone, To clarify: "Therefore, I extend logic to embrace all the necessary principles of semeiotic, and I recognize a logic of icons, and a logic of indices, as well as a logic of symbols…" (CP 4.9) “Logic follows Ethics and both follow Aesthetics” “Why, then, is spirit privileged

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

inal Message - >> *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L >> <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 6:28 PM

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

ntation. And it can take time - many >> semiosic Signs - before one has arrived at that genuine Final Interpretant >> which corresponds to that Dynamic Object. >> >> Does this clarify or muddle? >> >> Edwina >> >> >> - Original Message ---

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Object. Does this clarify or muddle? Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry Edwina, Frances, List,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

semiosic Signs - before > one has arrived at that genuine Final Interpretant which corresponds to > that Dynamic Object. > > Does this clarify or muddle? > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

es this clarify or muddle? Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry Edwina, Frances, List, This may possible be, at least in part, somethin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Connections [see >> Peirce's outline of the development of habits' [1.412 A guess at the >> riddle]. This is the process of semiosis - that continuous formulation of >> discrete units formed within a habit, which are in interaction with other >> discrete units. As form

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

tworked, [which is not at all similar to > referencing] they are therefore 'meaningful'. > > Edwina > > > - Original Message - From: <frances.ke...@sympatico.ca> > To: "'Peirce List'" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM > Subject

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

> > - Original Message - From: <frances.ke...@sympatico.ca> > To: "'Peirce List'" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry > > > Franc

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Frances to Edwina and Listers--- You partly stated in effect recently that a sign "is" meaning, and that if a sign "has" no meaning then it is not a sign, but is say mere noise. This seems wrong to me from a Peircean stance, but perhaps others here can clarify the jargon and with some

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Hi everyone, If you read CP 5.189 with logographic necessity (where “every part of the written speech must be necessary for the whole… (where) nothing is accidental…where everything is necessary at the place where it occurs” ~Strauss), that is, the form abduction *ought* to take (Peirce), then

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

erry_lr_chand...@me.com> To: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Cc: "Määttänen Kirsti" <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry List, Kirsti: Interesti

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

List, Kirsti: Interesting perspective! May I extend your insight a bit? In a more general tone, it is not merely the meaning of daily communication, but the meanings of daily communications as well as logical, mathematical, chemical and other forms of scientific communication. The critical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

List, Stephen: > > On 2/26/2016 5:38 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > I see abduction as guessing (and approved by CP), induction as having some > > evidence but less than deduction which is fallible but the best we can do > > to prove something. I have been cautioned against writing brief notes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

List, Jerry, Stephen, It seems to be commonly assumed that CSP created a theory of signs. - Well, amongst other things, he did. - But it was not what he was after. - He was after a theory, or rather a method and methodogy of finding out meanings. By the end of 1800, there was a kind of