Jon, List,
You wrote: "how the three forms of inference themselves are presented in CP
2.623. That text seems to indicate that ANY reasoning process that
concludes with a Rule is (by definition) induction."
That is true. So, for all 3 inference patterns:
Result, 1ns
|> Rule, 3ns
Case, 2ns
*Induction*:
2nd, 1ns, All these beans from the sample are white;
|> (End) 3ns, All the beans from this bag are *probably* white.
(Begin) 1st, 2ns, This large sample of beans is from this bag.
Abduction in the bean example (including my diagram) does *not* end with a
rule, but rather *begins* with a rule, whether it's one already known (a
strict reading of 2.623) or, in my variation or extrapolation from that,
one which is retroduced.
So for abduction ("hypothesis" in the bean example) one begins with a rule
(just as one does with deduction, but now moving vectorially in the
opposite direction):
First, the strict reading if hypothesis (as given in 2.623).
*Hypothesis (*from a rule already known):
**2nd, 1ns: This handful of beans I find on the table are white:
|> *(Begin), 3ns: All the beans in this bag are white,
***(End), 2ns: These beans are *possibly* from this bag.
Now, I've tried to extrapolate to another kind of hypothesis than this
'sleuthing' type; in this second situation one does *not *already know for
certain that the rule is that all the beans in the bag are white, but
guesses (retroduces?) that that may *possibly* be the rule. So my variation.
*Hypothesis (*from a new rule I guess to be true):
**2nd, 1ns: *Because* I find a handful of white beans next ot it:
|> (Start)*1st, 3ns: I think this bag of beans may all be white,
(End)*** 3rd, 2ns: *But *I will have to examine (sample) the entire bag to
see if all are indeed white and that what I thought was *possibly *the
case is actually the case (that my hypothesis is true).
I mentioned in my original post that I might find that all the beans in the
bag are actually black, and that my hypotheses was wrong (and, as Ben
noted, most are). Then I'll have to come up with another hypothesis, say
that the bag of white beans was removed for some reason.
OK, admittedly this is stretching the bean example. But unless you are
reading my diagrams incorrectly, in both versions one begins at the rule
and ends at the case.
This is exactly how I described my variation in the first long post in this
thread. I wrote:
In
*. . . *
my abductive variation o
f
the bean example
,
one needs in a
n important
way to see all three
phases
all-at-once-together (as Matthias Alexander might have put it
; or as Ben Udell recently wrote, "you have to look at the inference as a
whole"
), so that I*presume* a rule (3ns) is in effect,
that is,
that all the beans in this bag are white, *because* I see a handful of
white (1ns) beans
nearby which
I imagine to *possibly* be from that bag *were* a sample (2ns) to be taken.
[
As a further step in my inquiry, I
might
take that sample and find that all the beans are
, in fact, not white but
black
.
I now look for another explanation and
discover
that some of the bags of beans were earlier removed including the one with
all white beans
; in this case my hypothesis turned out to be incorrect
.
]
So, again, and as I remarked in another thread, in the bean example
*both *deduction
and abduction commence with a rule, while induction concludes with a rule.
The Result is a character sampled for.
|> Rule de-/abduction begin @ & induction ends @ a Rule.
Case (a sample) induction begins here
Best,
Gary R
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Gary R., List:
>
> Perhaps we are simply coming up against a limitation of not only the bean
> example, but also how the three forms of inference themselves are presented
> in CP 2.623. That text seems to indicate that ANY reasoning process that
> concludes with a Rule is (by definition) induction. However, I vaguely
> recall that Peirce held up Kepler's discovery that planetary orbits are
> elliptical--clearly a Rule--as a paradigmatic instance of abduction. More
> food for thought ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Jon S, List,
>>
>> Jon concluded:
>>
>>
>> I wonder if I am simply looking at all of this from a different
>> perspective than your "vectorial" analysis--which, by the way, I value
>> greatly for having helped me sort out my concept of the "logic of
>> ingenuity" in engineering (1ns/3ns/2ns).
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm certainly pleased that vectorial analysis has proved helpful to
>> you in developing your "logic of ingenuity" in engineering, your recent
>> series of articles on the topic being very solid work indeed in my opinion.
>>
>> I offered a 'variation' on the bean example because of a point I'd
>> recently made regarding the importance I give to a kind of abduction where
>> the law (rule) is *not* known, where the hypothesis is concerned with
>> positing a *hitherto unknown law*. Perhaps the bean example doesn't work
>> very well for that purpose, but I will stick with my vectorial analysis for
>> abduction, or perhaps, retroduction: that one forms the abduction of the
>> new law all-at-once-together out of the storehouse of ones knowledge of the
>> issue which only the testing of it will show as confomring to reality or
>> not.
>>
>> I'm afraid that I am not able to grasp the analysis in the penultimate
>> paragraph of your message. But, again, your response may be the result of
>> my trying to generalize Peirce's vectorial order for abduction from the
>> bean example which, admittedly, is explicitly concerned with the kind of
>> 'sleuthing' abduction (whereas the rule *is* already knowns) I referred
>> to in an earlier post. Perhaps that stretches the bean example further than
>> it ought to be taken. But did I present a kind of induction in my recent
>> analysis? I don't think so. It's just not the kind of abduction the bean
>> example was divised to illustrate, thus, my 'variation'.
>>
>> But, be that as it may, I think I've said all I have to say on the topic
>> for now. Thanks for reading through my extended analysis which, I hope, at
>> least put some light on the 6 vectors themselves, whether or not they apply
>> to all inference patterns neatly or not.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Gary R
>>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
