Jerry R., List: I appreciate your efforts to clarify where you would like to take this discussion, but I must continue to confess that "I do not understand you," although I would certainly not characterize myself as "an angry man" in this context. :-)
JR: "That is, the possibility for resolution of the tension between icon and index actually contributes to the inquirer conceiving of his hypothesis with favor." What icon? What index? What tension between them? JR: "My *hypothesis*, which should incite genuine doubt, is that [surprise and suspect] ought to be considered as a single term of an inverted syllogism and that this was Peirce’s intention." How do you propose that we should go about testing this hypothesis? I have been explaining all along that Peirce clearly had a specific *deductive* syllogism in mind when he wrote EP 2.414, not the form of inference for abduction that we find in CP 5.189. I and others have also pointed out that, contrary to treating surprise and suspect as a single term within the reasoning process, abduction is motivated by the former to dissolve it by producing the latter. Why do you find this role insufficient and/or unsatisfying? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
