Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

2012-03-02 Thread Catherine Legg
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Gary! The issue you raise about how deduction and induction should be categorised is an interesting one. I had always thought of deduction as falling clearly under secondness, due to the compulsion involved. But you are right to note that in theorematic deduction

Re: [peirce-l] Mathematical terminology, was, review of Moore's Peirce edition

2012-03-02 Thread Stephen C. Rose
1. Hypothesis (Abduction) 2. Induction 3. Deduction But isn't it also the case that we can mix firsts, seconds and thirds if we think it appropriate. As in Terms Propositions Symbols. Best, S *ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/ On Fri, Mar 2,

Re: [peirce-l] Categorical Aspects of Abduction, Deduction, Induction

2012-03-02 Thread Jon Awbrey
Thanks, Gary, this is a very helpful summary. Jon cc: Arisbe, Inquiry, Peirce List Gary Richmond wrote: Cathy, Stephen, list, Cathy, you wrote: I don't see how one might interpret induction as secondness though.Though a *misplaced* induction may well lead to the secondness of surprise due to

Re: [peirce-l] Categorical Aspects of Abduction, Deduction, Induction

2012-03-02 Thread Gary Richmond
Jonathan, list, I think your point is well taken, Jonathan. Best, Gary On 3/2/12, Jonathan DeVore devor...@umich.edu wrote: Dear List, It might be useful to bear in mind that we don't have to think about 3rdnss, 2ndnss, 1stnss in an all-or-nothing fashion. Peirce might have us recall

Re: [peirce-l] Categorical Aspects of Abduction, Deduction, Induction

2012-03-02 Thread Jon Awbrey
GR = Gary Richmond JD = Jonathan DeVore JD: It might be useful to bear in mind that we don't have to think about 3rdnss, 2ndnss, 1stnss in an all-or-nothing fashion. Peirce might have us recall that these elements will be differently prominent according to the phenomenon under