Your non-answer is OK with me. . My interpretation of your response is that your deep fears are well grounded.
Cheers Jerry > On Dec 14, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Jerry, List: > > A simple Google search confirms that there is nothing "problematic" or > "radical" about the well-established definition of "ampliative reasoning" > within the discipline of logic. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > List, Jon: >> On Dec 14, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> As Peirce explains in various places, ampliative reasoning produces >> conclusions that are not already contained in or implied by the premisses. >> As such, it encompasses both abductive/retroductive reasoning and inductive >> reasoning, but not deductive reasoning. That being the case, necessary >> reasoning is by definition not ampliative but merely explicative. > Your interpretations of the term “ampliative” is problematic. > > As I read the sentences, it appears that the logic of chemistry is excluded. > > Can you be more explicit wrt the texts from which you draw such radical > conclusions? > > Do you believe that a conclusion (consequence) from a collection of premises > (antecedents) must necessarily be one syntactical interpretations of the > Latin root, ducere? (Consider, for example, the proposition, X produces Y. > If you wish, you may consider X and Y as n-dimensional vectors or other > mathematical structures.) > > Thanks for your thought - it is helpful. > > Cheers > > Jerry > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of > the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
