Jon, Gary, list and friends, In response to all those words, I say to you:
one two three... *C A B*... *CP 5.189*... *as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful suggestions* STRANGER: That the dialectical method is no respecter of persons, and does not set the great above the small, but always arrives in her own way at the truest result. YOUNG SOCRATES: Clearly. Best, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Thanks for your kind words. I think that the discussion over the last > several days has also very helpfully clarified the distinction between > logical critic and methodeutic. In particular, CP 5.189 falls > under logical critic and pertains *only *to abduction, while the PM--like > pragmat[ic]ism itself--falls under methodeutic and pertains to a > *complete *inquiry. > > CSP: Long before I first classed abduction as an inference it was > recognized by logicians that the operation of adopting an explanatory > hypothesis--which is just what abduction is--was subject to certain > conditions. Namely, the hypothesis cannot be admitted, even as a > hypothesis, unless it be supposed that it would account for the facts or > some of them. The form of inference, therefore, is this: > > The surprising fact, C, is observed; > > But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, > > Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. (CP 5.189, EP 2.231) > > > But merely accounting for the facts (or some of them) is not enough for a > hypothesis to be admitted to the further stages of a complete inquiry. As > Ben U. brought to our attention ... > > BU: Remember that in the Carnegie Application (1902) he said, > "Methodeutic has a special interest in abduction, or the inference which > starts a scientific hypothesis. For it is not sufficient that a hypothesis > should be a justifiable one. Any hypothesis which explains the facts is > justified critically. But among justifiable hypotheses we have to select > that one which is suitable for being tested by experiment." That adverb > "critically" is a reference to logical critic, the critique of arguments. > In the rest of that quote he is discussing why methodeutic gets involved. > > > In other words, the PM is *required *before we can take that next step. > In fact, Peirce also explicitly stated this *later in the very same > lecture *in which he presented CP 5.189. > > CSP: If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism you will see > that it is nothing else than the question of the logic of abduction. That > is, pragmatism proposes a certain maxim which, if sound, must render > needless any further rule as to the admissibility of hypotheses to rank as > hypotheses, that is to say, as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful > suggestions; and, furthermore, this is *all *that the maxim of pragmatism > really pretends to do, at least so far as it is confined to logic, and is > not understood as a proposition in psychology. For the maxim of pragmatism > is that a conception can have no logical effect or import differing from > that of a second conception except so far as, taken in connection with > other conceptions and intentions, it might conceivably modify our practical > conduct differently from that second conception. (CP 5.196, EP 2.234) > > > Rather than CP 5.189, it is the PM (as formulated here) that, "if sound, > must render needless any further rule as to the admissibility of > hypotheses." Peirce subsequently explained why this is so. > > CSP: Admitting, then, that the question of Pragmatism is the question of > Abduction, let us consider it under that form. What is good abduction? > What should an explanatory hypothesis be to be worthy to rank as a > hypothesis? Of course, it must explain the facts. But what other > conditions ought it to fulfill to be good? The question of the goodness of > anything is whether that thing fulfills its end. What, then, is the end of > an explanatory hypothesis? Its end is, through subjection to the test of > experiment, to lead to the avoidance of all surprise and to the > establishment of a habit of positive expectation that shall not be > disappointed. Any hypothesis, therefore, may be admissible, in the > absence of any special reasons to the contrary, provided it be capable of > experimental verification, and only insofar as it is capable of such > verification. This is approximately the doctrine of pragmatism. (CP 5.197, > EP 2.235) > > > CP 5.189 can and does produce hypotheses that "explain the facts," yet are > *not *"capable of experimental verification," and thus are *not *admissible > for subsequent deductive explication and inductive evaluation. In other > words, an abduction that fully conforms to CP 5.189 may nevertheless turn > out to be a *bad *abduction; whereas *any *abduction whose resulting > hypothesis passes the test of the PM and (ultimately) the other two stages > of inquiry is a *good *abduction. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Jon, Helmut, List, >> >> Nice summary statement, Jon, which the quotation brings home. >> >> This discussion has been quite valuable for me as it clarified a matter >> which, as I noted in my initial post on the security/uberty question, has >> troubled me for some time. Perhaps most helpful was seeing that Houser had >> conflated the PM and 'pragmatism' in his introduction to the piece, and >> that much of my confusion arose from that (and that's yet another lesson >> learned here, namely, that even a *great* Peirce scholar--which I and >> many consider Nathan Houser to be--can err in any given interpretation). >> >> 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>* >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
