Phyllis, all, Ah, so Peirce changes his mind as to the subdivisions he will make of abduction and induction as he delves ever deeper into these in the N.A., there in consideration of *inquiry*, not merely as forms of *inference*. But I see no evidence in the N.A. (or elsewhere) that he changed his mind about the *categoriality *of induction and deduction. Are you saying that you see him changing his mind yet again in that regard, Phyllis?
Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> wrote: > Gary R wrote:that Induction split, at once, into the Sampling of > Collections, and the Sampling of Qualities. . . " (*Pragmatism as a > Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on > Pragmatism*, Turrisi, ed. 276-7). > > Yet later, in1908 in NA, Peirce identified 1. Retro. 2 deduction types > (theorematic & axiomatic sp?) And 3 kinds of induction (crude, qualitative, > quantitative). > > Phyllis > > > > Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > *Helmut, Cathy, Josh, Mary, lists, * > > > *On several occasions over the years I've taken up the matter of the > categorial assignations Peirce gave deduction and induction, the most recent > being a peirce-l post of March, 2012, in response to Cathy Legg writing: "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 > error." > https://www.mail-archive.com/peirce-l@listserv.iupui.edu/msg00747.html > <https://www.mail-archive.com/peirce-l@listserv.iupui.edu/msg00747.html>* > > > *So, this is a subject which clearly keeps coming up, most recently by you, > Helmut, while a couple of weeks ago Cathy and Josh Black, at the Peirce > Centennial Congress at U.Mass--or more precisely, on the way from that > Congress to Milford, PA, where a group of us placed a plaque commemorating > that Congress on a wall of Arisbe, Peirce's home there--both held for > induction as 3ns and deduction as 2ns, while I've been arguing, as has Mary > Libertin on the biosemiotics list recently, just the reverse, that, except > for a brief lapse (discusses below), Peirce saw induction as 2ns and > deduction as 3ns. * > > > *One can find in Patricia Ann Turrisi's edition of the 1903 Harvard Lectures > on Pragmatism notes for "Lecture 5: The Normative Sciences" a long note (#3) > from which the following excerpt gives an account of Peirce's lapse (his > brief change of mind in the categorial assignations), the reason for it, and > his late tendency to more or less settle his opinion again as deduction being > 3ns and induction 2ns. He writes:* > > *"Abduction, or the suggestion of an explanatory theory, is inference* > > *through an Icon, and is thus connected with Firstness; Induction, or* > > *trying how things will act, is inference through an Index, and is thus* > > *connected with Secondness; Deduction, or recognition of the relations* > > *of general ideas, is inference through a Symbol, and is thus connected* > > *with Thirdness. . . [My] connection of Abduction with Firstness,* > > *Induction with Secondness, and Deduction with Thirdness was confirmed* > > *by my finding no essential subdivisions of Abduction; that Induction* > > *split, at once, into the Sampling of Collections, and the Sampling of* > > *Qualities. . . " (*Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right* > > *Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism*, Turrisi, ed.* > > *276-7).* > > * > Shortly after this he comments on his brief period of "confusion" in the > matter. > > * > > *"[In] the book called *Studies in Logic by Members of the Johns* > > *Hopkins University*, while I stated the rationale of induction pretty* > > *well, I confused Abduction with the Second kind of Induction, that is* > > *the induction of qualities. Subsequently, writing in the seventh* > > *volume of the Monist, sensible of the error of that book but not quite* > > *understanding in what it consisted I stated the rationale of Induction* > > *in a manner more suitable to Abduction, and still later in lectures* > > *here in Cambridge I represented Induction to be connected with the* > > *third category and Deduction with the Second" [op. cit, 277].* > > * > In the sense that for a few years Peirce was "confused" about > these categorial associations of the inference patterns, he is at > least partially at fault in creating confusion in the minds of many > scholars about the categorial associations of the three inference > patterns. Still, he finally sees the error of his ways and corrects himself: > > * > > *At present [1903] I am somewhat disposed to revert to my* > > *original opinion.* > > > *And yet he adds that he "will leave the question undecided." * > > > *Still, after 1903 he never again associates deduction with > anything but 3ns, nor induction with anything but 2ns. * > > > *As I wrote in 2012: > > * > > *GR: I myself have never been able to think of deduction as anything but* > > *thirdness, nor induction as anything but 2ns, and I think that I* > > *mainly have stuck to that way of thinking because when, in* > > *methodeutic, Peirce employs the three categories together in* > > *consideration of a "complete inquiry"--as he does, for example, very* > > *late in life in *The Neglected Argument for the Reality of God* in the* > > *section the CP editors titled "The Three Stages of Inquiry" [CP 6.468* > > *- 6.473; also, EP 2:440 - 442]--he *explicitly* associates abduction* > > *(here, 'retroduction', of the hypothesis) with 1ns, deduction (of the* > > *retroduction's implications for the purposes of devising tests of it)* > > *with 3ns, and induction (as the inductive testing once devised) with* > > *2ns.* > > * > > Best, > > Gary* > >
----------------------------- 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 .
