Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Jerry Rhee]

But is this not simply

*The surprising fact C is observed;... *

Best,
Jerry R
CP 5.189


On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:

> Ben, Jon, List,
>
> One way to characterize the double aspect of inquiry is
> by contrasting a “Surprise” that demands an Explanation
> with a “Problem” that demands a Plan of Action.  Here is
> how I compared them in my work on Inquiry Driven Systems:
>
> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Sys
> tems_:_Part_1#1.3.5._Discussion_of_Formalization_:_Specific_Objects
>
> 
>
> I recognize inquiry as beginning with a surprising phenomenon or
> a problematic situation, more briefly described as a surprise or
> a problem, respectively. These are the kinds of moments that try
> our souls, the instances of events that instigate inquiry as an
> effort to achieve their own resolution.  Surprises and problems
> are experienced as afflicted with an irritating uncertainty or
> a compelling difficulty, one that calls for a response on the
> part of the agent in question:
>
> 1. A surprise calls for an explanation to resolve the uncertainty
>that is present in it.  This uncertainty is associated with a
>difference between observations and expectations.
>
> 2. A problem calls for a plan of action to resolve the difficulty
>that is present in it.  This difficulty is associated with a
>difference between observations and intentions.
>
> To express this diversity in a unified formula, both types of inquiry
> begin with a delta (∆), a compact symbol that admits a spectrum of
> expansions: debt, difference, difficulty, discrepancy, dispersion,
> distribution, doubt, duplicity, or duty.
>
> Expressed another way, inquiry begins with a doubt about one's object,
> whether this means what is true of a case, an object, or a world, what
> to do about reaching a goal, or whether the hoped-for goal is really
> good for oneself — with all that these questions lead to in essence,
> in action, or in fact.
>
> 
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 3/2/2017 12:32 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
>
>> Yes, and I remember years ago when researching for the "Abductive
>> reasoning" article at Wikipedia, I found papers
>> treating abduction as a way to infer how one might achieve a
>> pre-designated goal or end, as opposed to inferring how
>> nature or people did arrive at an observed outcome or phenomenon.
>>
>> On 3/2/2017 8:45 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the reply.
>>>
>>> When it comes to the complementarity between thought and conduct,
>>> information and control, it is often forgotten — and indeed it was
>>> only by coincidence or synchronicity that a discussion elsewhere on
>>> the web brought it back to mind — the same double aspect is already
>>> evident in Aristotle's original formulation of apagoge or abduction,
>>> where he gives two cases (1) a problem of description or explanation
>>> and (2) a problem of construction or invention, as geometers call it.
>>>
>>> Here is a place where I discussed this before:
>>>
>>> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/02/17/abduction-deductio
>>> n-induction-analogy-inquiry-3/
>>>
>>> Aristotle’s apagoge, variously translated as abduction, reduction, or
>>> retroduction, is a form of reasoning common to two types of situations.
>>> It may be (1) the operation by which a phenomenon (a fact to grasp, to
>>> understand) is factored through an explanatory hypothesis, or (2) the
>>> operation by which a problem (a fact to make, to accomplish) is factored
>>> through an intermediate construction.  Aristotle gives one example of
>>> each
>>> type in Prior Analytics 2.25.  I give some discussion here:
>>>
>>> Aristotle’s “Apagogy” : Abductive Reasoning as Problem Reduction
>>> http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Functional_Logic_:
>>> _Inquiry_and_Analogy#1.4._Aristotle.27s_.E2.80.9CApagogy
>>> .E2.80.9D_:_Abductive_Reasoning_as_Problem_Reduction
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>
> --
>
> inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
> academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
> oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>
>
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Benjamin Udell]

Jon S., list,

As far as I can tell, satisficing is just a third way between 
optimization and bare-minimum constraint satisfaction (any feasible 
solution). Same forest of decision-making and trade-offs; different tree.


Herbert Simon: "...decision makers can satisfice either by finding 
optimum solutions for a simplified world, or by finding satisfactory 
solutions for a more realistic world. Neither approach, in general, 
dominates the other, and both have continued to co-exist in the world of 
management science." Even the general statement is of a setting for 
trade-offs.


Best, Ben

On 3/2/2017 4:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:


Jon A., List:

It was also Herbert Simon who (rightly, in my view) observed that 
design in general, and engineering in particular, is a matter of 
satisficing rather than optimization--"good enough" rather than "best 
possible."


Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt 
 - 
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt 


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Jon Awbrey > wrote:


Ben, List,

I think it was Herbert Simon who I first recall lumping
engineering under the heading of the “design sciences”
but I don't know if that usage was original with him.

Coincidentally, again, if you believe in such things,
I've been reviewing a number of old discussions on the
Peirce List in preparation for getting back to my study
of Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives and there are a few
places where the exchanges with Bernard Morand branched
off onto the classification of signs.

Here is the initial exchange:


http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_10



Bernard gives his Table of the “Ten Divisions of Signs” here:


http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_13



Most of you know this is not really my thing — I prefer
to think of these taxonomies or typologies as detailing
the “Aspects or Modes of Sign Functionality” as opposed
to mutually exclusive and exhaustive ontologies of signs.
So I just submit them FWIWTWIMC ...

Regards,

Jon




-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
 Jon- I would agree with you. I think of these terminologies as terms
for typologies of the types of relations within the semiosic triad,
according to modal category. Since the Peircean semiosic triad [the
Sign] is dynamic and interactive, then, I don't see the functionality
of setting up seemingly rigid types.

Edwina
 -- 
 This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
 largest alternative telecommunications provider. 
 http://www.primus.ca 
 On Thu 02/03/17  4:40 PM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
 Ben, List, 
 I think it was Herbert Simon who I first recall lumping 
 engineering under the heading of the “design sciences” 
 but I don't know if that usage was original with him. 
 Coincidentally, again, if you believe in such things, 
 I've been reviewing a number of old discussions on the 
 Peirce List in preparation for getting back to my study 
 of Peirce's 1870 Logic of Relatives and there are a few 
 places where the exchanges with Bernard Morand branched 
 off onto the classification of signs. 
 Here is the initial exchange: 

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_10
[1] 
 Bernard gives his Table of the “Ten Divisions of Signs” here: 

http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Talk:Peirce%27s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives#Discussion_Note_13
[2] 
 Most of you know this is not really my thing — I prefer 
 to think of these taxonomies or typologies as detailing 
 the “Aspects or Modes of Sign Functionality” as opposed 
 to mutually exclusive and exhaustive ontologies of signs. 
 So I just submit them FWIWTWIMC ... 
 Regards, 
 Jon 
 On 3/2/2017 3:15 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: 
 > Jon S., list, 
 > 
 > I just remembered that Bernard Morand, now retired, of Institut
Universitaire de Technologie (France), Département 
 > Informatique, who used to be quite active on peirce-l, wrote a
book published in 2004 _Logique de la Conception: Figures 
 > de sémiotique générale d'après Charles S. Peirce _ [Logic of
Design: Illustrations of General Semiotic After Charles S. 
 > Peirce] http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/pastbooks.htm#morand [3]  . 
 > 
 > In 2004 I had no idea that it was about design, I didn't know that
the French word _/conception/_ can simply mean 
 > "design." A few years ago I got him to agree to translate into
English its foreword which was available gratis online. 
 > The English translation of the foreword is at 
 >
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/morand/conception-fwd.htm
[4] 
 >  . 
 > 
 > He once provided us with this image of Peirce's diagram of the
three sign trichotomies: 
 >
http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/220287/2-2/moz-screenshot-1.jpg
[6] 
 > which now adorns the top of the Peirce Blog
http://csp3.blogspot.com/ [7] 
 > 
 > In his 2004 book, he makes an argument for the ordering of the ten
sign-trichotomies as: 
 > 3-2-1-4-10-9-8-7-6-5 
 > 
 > He discussed it at peirce-l in "Re: Symbol vs. iconized index"
2008-10-27 16:23:57 
 > http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=2105468#2105468 [8] 
 > 
 > Here's a diagram that I made showing his view: 
 > http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/attachment/207/2/10ad3.GIF [9] 
 > 
 > Best, Ben 
 > 
 --  
 inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ [10] 
 academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey [11] 
 oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey [12] 
 isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA [13] 
 facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache [14] 


Links:
--
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fintersci.ss.uci.edu%2Fwiki%2Findex.php%2FTalk%3APeirce%2527s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives%23Discussion_Note_10
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fintersci.ss.uci.edu%2Fwiki%2Findex.php%2FTalk%3APeirce%2527s_1870_Logic_Of_Relatives%23Discussion_Note_13
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iupui.edu%2F%7Earisbe%2Fpastbooks.htm%23morand
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iupui.edu%2F%7Earisbe%2Fmenu%2Flibrary%2Faboutcsp%2Fmorand%2Fconception-fwd.htm
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iupui.edu%2F%257Earisbe%2Fmenu%2Flibrary%2Faboutcsp%2Fmorand%2Fconception-fwd.htm
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flyris.ttu.edu%2Fread%2Fattachment%2F220287%2F2-2%2Fmoz-screenshot-1.jpg
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fcsp3.blogspot.com%2F
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flyris.ttu.edu%2Fread%2Fmessages%3Fid%3D2105468%232105468
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Flyris.ttu.edu%2Fread%2Fattachment%2F207%2F2%2F10ad3.GIF
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Finquiryintoinquiry.com%2F
[11]
http://webmail.primus.ca/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Findependent.academia.edu%2FJonAwbrey
[12]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List, Jon:

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
> 
>  I have argued for years that just as science is perceived as an especially 
> systematic way of knowing, likewise engineering could be conceived as an 
> especially systematic way of willing; and if this is really the case, then 
> the distinctive reasoning process of engineers should be paradigmatic for 
> other kinds of decision-making, including ethical deliberation.

Your statement appears very sound to me.

I would add that the 
> engineering could be conceived as an especially systematic way of willing; 
is parallel to the phrase
“ synthetic chemistry could be conceived as an especially systematic way of 
willing molecules from atoms”

:-)

The parallel is in the concepts but differs in the scale of the logical objects.
Or, at least it had until nano-engineering started to be successful.

Cheers

Jerry
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Stephen C. Rose]

OK, an ethical index. Do we agree a proper Peirce triad is Icon Index
Symbol? If so, do we agree that Peirce did not really flesh out his
thoughts about ethics and aesthetics though he valued both highly? If so,
do we agree that those who know such things will remind us that if Peirce
attached an order to ethics and aesthetics he placed aesthetics before
ethics? I think this is the case. Now I will say how I see it and explain.
I see ethics as the second in a progression that goes from icon-reality
through index-ethics through symbol-aesthetics (expression and or action).
The pragmatic maxim rendered understandable and sensible! The explanation
is everything I have written on Peirce since I found out anything about
him. It includes seeing ethics as an index of values and seeing
consideration of ethics as an inherent blunt truth aspect of considering
what one will say and do. I think to place aesthetics as the third,  in
opposition to Peirce if that order was important to him, has to do with the
central problem of aesthetics which is its captivity by the art world, made
possible by the late Professor Danto and others. For me, aesthetcs is the
whole thing, life here and now from its ugliest to the most beautiful. We
are all artists. Now to top this off, ask yourself why Mao's cultural
revolution was a miserable failure? I say it was because of its ethics. An
ethics that does not see the binary as the problem, conflict and violence
the outcome, is no ethic at all. The CR of Mao could only have succeeded as
an explicitly nonviolent movement. So too our future as well. That is a
little window on my placement of an ethical index in the central blunt
truth position that "his glassy essence" may not have seen.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Jon A.:  Thanks for your comments.
>
> Stephen:  Ditto.  Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "an
> ethical index" in this context?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Stephen C. Rose 
> wrote:
>
>> A sequential triadic means of actual practical life requires a step past
>> Peirce although all the elements of this sequential means are implicit in
>> his writings. I believe it is the need for an ethical index that must be
>> argued, along with the obvious point that only conscious action that is
>> considered can be said to count as a documentable indication of practical
>> results.
>>
>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>>
>>> Jon,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link.
>>>
>>> The duality or complementarity between Thought and Action (Dewey)
>>> or Information and Control (as later generations came to cast it
>>> within cybernetics, computer science, and the systems sciences)
>>> has always been an integral feature of Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim.
>>> Many of my early days on the Peirce List were exhausted in the
>>> effort to communicate the implications of that integration.
>>> But the pull toward Spectator Philosophies (James) is very
>>> persistent and it will no doubt take the exertion of many
>>> wills to overcome their one-sighted bias.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jon A.:  Thanks for your comments.

Stephen:  Ditto.  Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "an
ethical index" in this context?

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Stephen C. Rose 
wrote:

> A sequential triadic means of actual practical life requires a step past
> Peirce although all the elements of this sequential means are implicit in
> his writings. I believe it is the need for an ethical index that must be
> argued, along with the obvious point that only conscious action that is
> considered can be said to count as a documentable indication of practical
> results.
>
> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>
>> Jon,
>>
>> Thanks for the link.
>>
>> The duality or complementarity between Thought and Action (Dewey)
>> or Information and Control (as later generations came to cast it
>> within cybernetics, computer science, and the systems sciences)
>> has always been an integral feature of Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim.
>> Many of my early days on the Peirce List were exhausted in the
>> effort to communicate the implications of that integration.
>> But the pull toward Spectator Philosophies (James) is very
>> persistent and it will no doubt take the exertion of many
>> wills to overcome their one-sighted bias.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

[Gary Richmond]

Jon, Ben, list,

My apologies. I hardly ever do this any more, but rushed for time, I
managed to send this off-list message to the list. I don't think there's
anything 5oo personal or controversial in it, but I do hate doing this sort
of thing.

Best,

Gary


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> off-list
>
> Jon,
>
> I just read parts 3 and 4 of your series in succession. What a fine
> accomplishment. Perhaps if more scholars thought with your acuity and wrote
> with your clarity and efficiency (succinctness), Peirce studies might be
> much further along* in the world generally* than they are now. This is
> also to suggest that I have no problem with the notion of the
> "popularization" of Peircean pragmatism and semeiotic as long as his ideas
> aren't distorted in some limited personal use (the various 'thieves of
> Peirce' such as Charles Morris. Walker Percy--whom I may never forgive for
> setting Ken Ketner in the wrong=literary direction in writing his probably
> never to be completed proposed 3 voluem autobiography (stet) of Peirce as
> he was in the position and had all the tools, including the philosophical
> and mathematical ones, to write a definitive biography).
>
> But for now, and just speaking of your series, congratulations on an
> extraordinary accomplishment, a line of argumentation which, if followed
> and fully absorbed--that is, put into practice--might improve many a ones
> thinking *and willing*. It certainly is doing that for me!
>
> I'd like to write more in response to it on the list, but I spent al good
> portion of yesterday hangin' with the members of our NYC New Metaphysical
> Club, then the late afternoon commenting on a paper on truth and the
> nominalism vs realism question which Cathy Legg had posted on Academia for
> comment, an excellent effort to move philosophers in the direction of
> Peircean realism. Yet, as Kathleen Hull commented, culture as a whole
> (including philosophy of course) is dominated by nominalism. Hull wrote:
> "We are all nominalists, culturally;" and while this is not literally
> so--there are some notable exceptions--making the case for Peirce's brand
> of realism continues to be an uphill battle.
>
> In any event, I've little time to post anything today as I need to study
> some Zalamea in order to make sure that I can follow at least some of what
> he's saying this evening. The guy is so cutting edge that I think it will
> take even the mathematical community quite a while to catch up with him. In
> his precis on the Semiotics Web site he sets up three pairs of triads and I
> want see if they match up with Peirce's categories--when I first looked at
> that blurb I thought that they did not--so studying them is a principal
> task of my afternoon. I'm glad that Jeff suggested our setting up a way to
> attend remotely. Are you planning to GoToMeeting?
>
> The members of the NMC all agree that the paper you linked to (== the
> first four chapters of Fernando's book on continuity), might make an
> excellent slow read on list, and I hope to discuss this with him after his
> talk this evening. Of the several suggestions I've received for a slow
> read, I think that Z's paper makes the most sense for now especially since,
> as Ben mentioned at our NMC lunch meeting yesterday, that there seems to be
> quite a bit of interest in continuity on the list. As you probably
> know--and may even agree--I see Z is the modern master on the topic.
>
> So, again, thanks for your 4 paper series (I'll read the first two
> installments again when I get the chance) and especially those last two
> papers (btw, I began the 3rd this morning thinking it was the 4th, and am
> very glad I did). More sooner--I hope--than later. Lots to talk about.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gary
>
> PS While the hip replacement is in good shape, I'm still on crutches
> because of the muscle tear in my thigh. I have a feeling it will be a long
> time healing. James is going to drive me one way, but I'm going to hazard
> public transportation going there. Wish me luck!
>
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <
> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> List:
>>
>> Part 4, subtitled "Beyond Engineering," is now online at
>> http://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107.  It discusses how *anyone *can use
>> the logic of ingenuity to imagine possibilities, assess alternatives, and
>> choose one of them to actualize.  I have argued for years that just as
>> science is perceived as an especially systematic way of *knowing*,
>> likewise engineering could be conceived as an