List: Ben U. and I seem to be on the same page here. He diagrammed deduction thus ...
2. Minor premiss, case. Sensation, feeling [firstness]. |> 1. Major premiss, rule. Habit [thirdness]. 3. Conclusion, result. Decision, volition [secondness]. ... and I would diagram abduction (per CP 5.189 via CP 2.623) thus ... 3. Explanatory hypothesis A, case. Possibility [firstness]. |> 2. Reason why C would follow from A, rule. Necessity [thirdness]. 1. Surprising fact C, result. Actuality [secondness]. Simply reversing the order would also be a diagram of deduction, but with the major and minor premisses switched. As Ben U. pointed out, this has no effect on the logic itself, but perhaps it helps illustrate why abduction is sometimes called retroduction. 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
