List:
I fear that the distinction between connotation and denotation is being lost in
this discussion.
Cheers
Jerry
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> Thread:http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18467
>
Tom,
Vegas?! Lucky you. Weather here in Chicago is cool. :)
Sure, that'll work. But ultimately, we're talking about a method to
truth. For me, what you propose is perfectly fine because it's a matter of
putting words to phenomenon. Also, when talking semiotic, we should be
talking about
: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tom Gollier <tgoll...@gmail.com<mailto:tgoll...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inq
most
posts in this thread.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Tom Gollier
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
Tom, Jon, list,
If I may, and making
PM, Tom Gollier <tgoll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Tom Gollier <tgoll...@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy,
> Inquiry
> To: Jon A
Jerry,
Why not just a rule of thumb like there's usually a coolness in the air
before it rains. (Here in Las Vegas there's a burst of windiness.) But
then it's just a straight-forward deduction to get to the rain.
Tom
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"
List, Tom:
Perhaps someone here knows more details about these distinctions in the forms
of logic.
A few comments about the history of logic may be helpful to some readers.
The modern names of logics are remote from the “suppositio” of the middle ages.
My understanding is that CSP’s usage
Hi list,
In a sense, Peircean semiotic is Socratic dialectic taken to its limit (art
of conversation or of friendly dispute in which
justice/truth/goodness/Thirdness is the motivation, which are slave to
First and Second).
There are three minds operating during the inquiry; the utterer,
Jerry, List,
A very good question.
Susan Awbrey and I tried our hands at answering the “What Next?”
question in the medium of analyzing Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example:
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
Relevant excerpt below:
The Pattern and
ociate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 March 2016 4:30 AM
>
> *To:* John Collier
> *Cc:* Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List; Clark Goble
> *Subject:*
y out inquiry responsibly.
>
>
>
> The simple question arises:
>
> If an abductive step is taken by the inquirer, then what?
>
>
>
> For example, say that a sinsign and its legisigns and qualisigns provide
> the informative extension to generate an index, how does one take this
> abductive object a
; Peirce List; Clark Goble
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
John,
To me, we are talking about whether Feyerabend or Peirce can offer a definite
suggestion on how to proceed if we are frozen with respect to advancing on a
problem. To say there’s
ohn Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
John, Clark, List:
On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:59 AM, John Collier
<colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote:
List,
Another point that is often overlooked in
rk Goble <cl...@lextek.com>, Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
Hi John,
I agree with your conclusion of the paper (although I did not read the body).
I was objecting to this portion of your post: &
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 09 March 2016 11:02 AM
To: John Collier
Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
Hi all,
It seems paradoxical to me that a Peircean doesn't believe in Peirce's
ctive, what information is needed to
> extend (in the Aristotelian sense of intensional logic) the index to the
> (telelogical?) goal of the inquirer?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com <cl...@lextek
04 March 2016 12:35 AM
> To: Peirce List
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net
> <mailto:jawb...@att.net>> wrote:
>
> Let me just say again that abd
anner).
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 04 March 2016 12:35 AM
> *To:* Peirce
Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sent: Friday, 04 March 2016 12:35 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey
<j
Hi Jon, list,
Despite your noble efforts to address it, the problem continues to
persist. It appears it doesn't even matter that you're right.
What would you say is a best strategy for fixing the problem of
communicating Peirce correctly other than what you or anyone else is
doing? Are they
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> Let me just say again that abduction is not “inference to the best
> explanation”.
> That gloss derives from a later attempt to rationalize Peirce's idea and it
> has
> led to a whole literature of misconception. Abduction
Hi everyone,
To clarify:
"Therefore, I extend logic to embrace all the necessary principles of
semeiotic, and I recognize a logic of icons, and a logic of indices, as
well as a logic of symbols…" (CP 4.9)
“Logic follows Ethics and both follow Aesthetics”
“Why, then, is spirit privileged
inal Message -
>> *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
>> *Cc:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L
>> <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 6:28 PM
ntation. And it can take time - many
>> semiosic Signs - before one has arrived at that genuine Final Interpretant
>> which corresponds to that Dynamic Object.
>>
>> Does this clarify or muddle?
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>>
>> - Original Message ---
Object.
Does this clarify or muddle?
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy,
Inquiry
Edwina, Frances, List,
semiosic Signs - before
> one has arrived at that genuine Final Interpretant which corresponds to
> that Dynamic Object.
>
> Does this clarify or muddle?
>
> Edwina
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
> *
es this clarify or muddle?
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
Edwina, Frances, List,
This may possible be, at least in part, somethin
Connections [see
>> Peirce's outline of the development of habits' [1.412 A guess at the
>> riddle]. This is the process of semiosis - that continuous formulation of
>> discrete units formed within a habit, which are in interaction with other
>> discrete units. As form
tworked, [which is not at all similar to
> referencing] they are therefore 'meaningful'.
>
> Edwina
>
>
> - Original Message - From: <frances.ke...@sympatico.ca>
> To: "'Peirce List'" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM
> Subject
>
> - Original Message - From: <frances.ke...@sympatico.ca>
> To: "'Peirce List'" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
>
>
> Franc
Frances to Edwina and Listers---
You partly stated in effect recently that a sign "is" meaning, and that if a
sign "has" no meaning then it is not a sign, but is say mere noise. This seems
wrong to me from a Peircean stance, but perhaps others here can clarify the
jargon and with some
Hi everyone,
If you read CP 5.189 with logographic necessity (where “every part of the
written speech must be necessary for the whole… (where) nothing is
accidental…where everything is necessary at the place where it occurs”
~Strauss), that is, the form abduction *ought* to take (Peirce), then
erry_lr_chand...@me.com>
To: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Cc: "Määttänen Kirsti" <kirst...@saunalahti.fi>
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy,
Inquiry
List, Kirsti:
Interesti
List, Kirsti:
Interesting perspective!
May I extend your insight a bit? In a more general tone, it is not merely the
meaning of daily communication, but the meanings of daily communications as
well as logical, mathematical, chemical and other forms of scientific
communication.
The critical
List, Stephen:
>
> On 2/26/2016 5:38 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
> > I see abduction as guessing (and approved by CP), induction as having some
> > evidence but less than deduction which is fallible but the best we can do
> > to prove something. I have been cautioned against writing brief notes
List, Jerry, Stephen,
It seems to be commonly assumed that CSP created a theory of signs. -
Well, amongst other things, he did. - But it was not what he was after.
- He was after a theory, or rather a method and methodogy of finding out
meanings.
By the end of 1800, there was a kind of
36 matches
Mail list logo