Edwina,
Do you consider that the universe includes chance events, or are all events
tests of abductions?
SxS
On Dec 16, 2020, at 5:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky
mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click
links, open attachments
Gary, List:
Thank you for posting this listing. It is highly probably the source of my
recall of CSP’s usage of the term “ampliative” as the pages in EP 2 contain
many many marginal remarks.
The assertions in this lecture focus on the logic of relations / relatives. He
rejects Kantian cat
Cf: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 2
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/16/survey-of-abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-2/
All,
This updates my Survey of blog and wiki posts on three elementary
forms of inference, as recognized by a logical tradition
Steven - yes, I consider that the universe reasons - and I do
consider, therefore, that abduction, as a reasoning process, does
indeed happen in 'sub-elements' [what on earth does that mean and
imply???] - in birds and bills.
And yes, the universe is, in my view, an inference,
Edwina,
Thanks for the response, but whether or not one believes that the whole system
(cosmos) reasons, there would be no evolutionary abduction happening in
sub-elements such as the birds and their bills. And if you make the cosmos an
inference machine, then you certainly paint yourself into
Steven - thanks for your comments.
Yes, abduction is the suggestion of a hypothesis to explain a set of
observations.
Your examples are obviously set up as deductive, inductive,
abductive, but, these are purely intellectual exercises.
You are ignoring that the
Edwina and Helmut,
I have only recently joined the Peirce List and find this interesting thread.
Excuse me putting in a word into your conversation about abduction — especially
as it concerns how far the concept might be stretched.
Abduction is a hunch, an hypothesis. It focuses a set of tests,
Helmut - no, this is not Lamarckianism - which is the movement of a
learned habit into a genetic form. And 'common' Darwinism, with its
reliance ONLY on random mutations - has long been refuted in the
biological studies, where it is observed that organisms react
'intelligently' to stimul
Edwina, I think this view (intelligent response, informed interacton) is called Lamarckism, has been refuted for a long time by Darwinism, but is since shortly restored in a weak form with the discovery of epigenetics.
With "perceived similarity" I meant a knowledge about similarity or identit
