Mike, List: Sorry, I am not following you. Peirce refers to a "surprising fact," not a "surprising result"; and he typically categorizes facts under Secondness, not Thirdness. What do you mean by "next category" and "new category"? What do you mean by "potentials" in this context?
Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > JAS, List: > > So besides >> having three different conclusions, the three forms of inference have >> three different starting points--Rule/Case/Result for deduction, >> Case/Result/Rule for induction, and Result/Rule/Case for abduction. >> > > This is how I have understood it as well. > > However, the "surprising result" comes from Thirdness and that is why I > have a hard time seeing abduction in a purely 1ns light. Rather, I see > Peirce's thoughts on categorization as providing the dynamics of the > semiosis of logic and the scientific method, wherein 3ns is the grounds for > abduction, the "surprising result" becoming the topic of the next category, > with the potentials resulting from abductive thinking populating the > potentials of 1ns of the new category. We then test those potentials via > induction and deduction in order to generate the 3ns and the new > "surprising results" for the new category. Thus, new categories and > semiosis and the process of truth-testing continues (as a goal or limit > function). > > Mike
----------------------------- 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 .
