Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

oh and btw, phi spiral abduction is for *everybody*...or at least for *all who investigate*. "Only everybody can know the truth." ~Goethe "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth. and the object represented in this opinion is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

:) Edwina, No worries...it's hard to go to something from nothing if one doesn't see the connection...even if there is something there, already. Best, Jerry On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jerry - I wouldn't dare analyze this, as the phi spiral

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Jerry - I wouldn't dare analyze this, as the phi spiral abduction is a specific analysis of yours and I haven't been following that thread. My first 'abductive' response would be that the formation of a spiral is a process of habit-formation, i.e., the formation of a hypothesis, a set of rules.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Hi Edwina, It clarifies. For instance, what would you say is the "Object-as-it-is-meant-to-be-understood, i.e., the dynamic object" in phi spiral abduction? Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > In reply to Gary, the reason I refer to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

In reply to Gary, the reason I refer to Relations in the plural - and there are indeed those people who reject this [eg, John Deely I know!] - is because each of the three can function in a different modal category. I don't see how defining the semiosic triad as ONE Relation conveys this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Hi Clark, list, There is a phenomenon of mouse corneal striping/twisting/spiraling that is unexplained. For instance: “Corneal stripes and spirals are also visualised in some human conditions (Bron 1973) and are unexplained. They may reflect failure of centripetally migrating cells to meet

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Edwina, Frances, List, This may possible be, at least in part, something of a linguistic dispute. If one sees the Representamen as 'sign' (one of Peirce's uses of the term), then, one could argue that, say, a rhematic iconic qualisign (sign 1 in the 10-fold sign classification) hasn't any meaning

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

> On Mar 1, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > I consider Inference to the Best Explanation as the concluding part of the > First Stage of Inquiry, not the beginning. Selecting the best explanation > has to operate in context of relieving a genuine doubt, preceded

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

One reason to appreciate the Abduction-Deduction-Induction distinction Peirce derives from Aristotle is because it puts us in a different reality from the one promulgated by Analytic Philosophy. Analytic Philosophy supposes a reality of determinate logical atoms; and finds it challenging to

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

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

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 7 http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/01/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-7/ Date : March 1, 2016 at 12:34 pm Peircers, Here's another issue I thought had been cleared up a long time ago but I find is still causing

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

Jerry - but a Sign IS meaning. If a sign has no meaning then it isn't a sign. It's noise. With regard to your 'meta-language' doesn't that have some similarity to General Terms, which do allow multiple CONTEXT-based meanings? You note that chemical symbols and propositions are particular.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

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