Ben, List:
While I agree with the first part of this post, these sections raise questions.
Questions interwoven.
> On May 1, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In abduction, the 'result' is the surprising observation in one of the
> premisses. In deduction, it's the conclusion which, if neither vacuously
> stating a logical axiom ("p or not p") nor merely restating a premiss or
> premisses unchanged, brings a new aspect to the premisses, an element of
> novelty, even of surprise sufficient to lead one to check one's premisses and
> reasoning.
>
Why do you assert that abduction is restricted to “surprising” observations?
Is this assertion valid for any atomic sentence that is used to form a
molecular sentence?
Or, may several atomic sentences serve as premises such that a large number of
molecular sentences could be formed?
> It's seemed to me that the 'new aspect' of a worthwhile syllogistic deductive
> conclusion compensates for the deduction's technical redundancy, its
> conclusion's saying nothing really new to the premisses. This is likewise as
> plausibility, natural simplicity, compensates for abductive inference's basic
> wildness. I don't think that one can ignore either the ratiocinative or
> instinctual aspects in thoughtful abductive inference.
>
Can a deduction conclusion merely select one of many possible conclusions
without being redundant?
What leads you to state that "abductive inference” is intrinsically wild?
What prevents abduction reasoning from being well-ordered?
> So, the question to me is, is the 'new aspect' brought by such deduction a
> 'natural,' 'instinctual' kind of novelty, as opposed to logical novelty (the
> conclusion saying something unentailed by the premisses), *likewise* as
> abductive plausibility is a natural, instinctual simplicity, as opposed to
> logical simplicity (a distinction made by Peirce in "A Neglected Argument"
> the linked paragraph https://sites.google.com/site/cspmem/terms#simple
> <https://sites.google.com/site/cspmem/terms#simple> )? This kind of novelty
> resists being usefully quantified likewise as natural simplicity resists it.
> I don't know whether the sense of such novelty is properly called
> instinctual. Generally abductive inference seems to depend more on
> half-conscious or instinctual inference than deduction does. But the fruitful
> tension between abduction's wildness and its targeted natural simplicity is
> taken as a lot more troubling than it should be, I think, insofar as that
> tension is like the fruitful tension between such deduction's technical
> redundancy and its targeted novelty of aspect or perspective.
>
Do you consider an assertion such as “A sells B to C for D”, where A, B, C, and
D are nouns, that is, the premise is a polynomial of adicity four, to be an
atomic sentence, an atom of logic?
Cheers
Jerry
> Best, Ben
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
