Hi Glen,
So here is the logic as I understand it. Experience is largely random. However, some experiences repeat. The more they repeat, the greater the probability that we live in a statistical world in which they will repeat again. Think of flipping a coin. Most coin flips in life are random. But let's say you flip a coin ten times at it comes up HHHHHHHHHH. With each additional flip, the probability that the flips are drawn from a population of equal numbers of H's and T's declines. This is how Peirce understands induction. If it sounds a lot like your freshman stats class, don't be surprised. Peirce invented some of that. There is an additional probabilistic logic, of which your procedure is an example, called abduction. As we increase the number of kinds of evidence that point toward Charlemagne's eating eggs, the probability of his egg-eating increases. Pray God I have that right. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 6:09 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Weeds of pragmatism: Subjectivity and intimacy So, we've dispensed with the question of whether he ate eggs on a particular day. But how about something more general like the likelihood he ate eggs on a regular basis? Hypotheses surrounding such a question might include whether domestic chickens (or other egg-laying animals) were common there and then, whether it was in the diet of particular castes, samples from the stomachs or homes of archeological digs only indirectly related to his actual plates, etc. The (approximate) truth of the particular is then metascientifically inferred, right? If so, the question becomes one of bounding scientific results, perhaps of an _order_ (0th, 1st, ..., higher order science). On 02/23/2016 04:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > I would say that there is no fact of the matter, unless it be the > case that you can imagine a series of experiments that would resolve it. > The word "experiment", here, is used in the Peircean sense to refer to > a planned, logical series of arranged experiences. Digging for > Charlemagne's breakfast plates would perhaps be an example of such an > "experiment". You guys just refuse to clip your posts. -- ⇔ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
