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 to > > the list. Cheers, S > >
Have you considered the difference that distinguishes constrained guessing from mere indexing the possibilities in one’s mind and randomly choosing a member of the index as a guess? Is that you mental image of CSP’s usage of the term “abduction” in formal logics? If so, then I suggest you have missed the basic elements of CSP’s description of how to interpret signs in relation to its deictic actions. In CSP’s view, a sign necessarily has both denotative and connotative actions; the capabilities of the observer may constrain his (her) interpretative capacities to one set of indices or another set of indices, depending on the prior experiences. The nature of the index assigned to a sinsign is a personal choice of the individual observer of the sign, is it not? And, the form of the index itself may include ethical and moral values, can it not? In one field of inquiry, the indices from the sinsign, qualisigns and legisigns may generate a discrete set of abductive choices. CSP named these choices the dicisigns. The choices are, in modern terminology, cybernetic choices in that they form a circular argument with a bounded set of symbols, legisigns and sinsigns. These choices can also be expressed as logical diagrams in CSP assertions about logical systems. 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 .
