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
Cf: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 30
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/12/15/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-30/
Re: Richard J. Lipton
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/about-me/
::: The Future Of Mathematics?
https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/the-future-
All,
Questions about "Abduction in AI and Computer Science"
arising in the Ontolog Forum led me to go looking for
what I knew must be any number of previous discussions
on relevant subjects. Here's a sample I came up with:
* Ontolog : Abductive Inference, Concept Formation, Hypothesis Formation
All,
I expanded my last post on Abduction, etc., filling in
missing bits of discussion and adding a few more links.
I think a link will suffice:
Cf: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 28
At:
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/10/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquir
Cf: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 28
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/10/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-28/
Re: Ontolog Forum (
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/ontolog-forum/pRiN9r9NUoM/overview )
::: Adrian Walker (
https://groups.google.com/d/m
Peircers,
These days it takes me a web search to discover what I was
thinking and writing the month before. I went looking for
the passage in McCulloch where he uses Case, Fact, Rule and
it led me through hill and dale and back to my own post here
on March 11. See McCulloch's paper with the Bar
Subthread:
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18519
TG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18520
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18521
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18525
JA:http://perma
Subthread:
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18519
TG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18520
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18521
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18525
Edwina, Jerry
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
> JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/
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 sig
: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tom Gollier mailto:tgoll...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
To: Jon Awbrey mailt
but I've been away and have missed 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,
PM, Tom Gollier wrote:
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Tom Gollier
> Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy,
> Inquiry
> To: Jon Awbrey
>
>
> Jon,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
Jerry, Tom, List,
There are light revisions of my last two posts
at the distal ends of the following two links:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/15/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-16/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/16/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-17/
T
Thread:http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18467
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18486
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18508
TG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18511
JA:http://permalink.g
Tom, List,
I know we've discussed the senses of “object” that make sense
in Peirce and semiotics in general on many previous occasions
since the turn of the millennium, so let me just link to one
of the more recent mentions that popped up in my anamnesis:
Re: Sciences As Communicational Communit
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" or
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 of
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tom Gollier
Date: Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy,
Inquiry
To: Jon Awbrey
Jon,
Thanks for your reply.
If we take "object" in sense of an objective, why isn't &quo
Jerry,
Having been brought up on "extension" and "intension," I always assumed
"denotation" and "connotation" were more or less synonyms for them. Thus,
I was startled to learn that "denotation" is generally associated with a
definition, and thus both terms would be part of the intension. But li
Thread:http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18467
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18486
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18508
TG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18511
JA:http://permalink.g
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,
interp
Jon,
I think there's a troubling narrowness interpreting this situation as
something like:
"In this narrative we can identify the characters of the sign relation
as
follows: *coolness *is a Sign of the Object *rain*, and the
Interpretant is *the*
* thought of the rain’s likelihood*
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 Stage
to find a
> solution.
>
>
>
> In any case, I repeat that I would agree that there is no special problem
> of the sort I was worried about that arises in the course of normal science.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
Chandler; Peirce List; Clark Goble
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
John,
You're saying there is no case where transformative science operates through
normal science?
If it's simply a matter of coordinating the proper joint problem space and
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 15
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/11/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-15/
Date : March 11, 2016 at 7:30 pm
Peircers,
There's a couple of phrases that have stuck in my mind from
my earliest days of reading about abduct
hat arises in the course of normal science.
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1
; 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 no
erry LR Chandler
> Date: 2016/03/10 00:07 (GMT+02:00)
> To: Peirce List
> Cc: Clark Goble , John Collier
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy,
> Inquiry
>
> John, Clark, List:
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:59 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
d for most physicists up to
Einstein.
John
Sent from my Samsung device
Original message
From: Jerry LR Chandler
Date: 2016/03/10 00:07 (GMT+02:00)
To: Peirce List
Cc: Clark Goble , John Collier
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inq
ot; as Feyerabend would say in his typically provocative manner).
John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com<mailto:cl...@lextek.com>]
Sent: Friday, 04 March 2016 12:35 AM
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 09 March 2016 11:02 AM
> *To:* John Colli
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&#
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 ]
> *Sent:* Friday, 04 March 2016 12
gt; To: Peirce List
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 3:25 PM, Jon Awbrey <mailto:jawb...@att.net>> wrote:
>
> Let me just say again that abduction is not “inference to the best
> explanation”.
Recently:
CG:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18475
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18476
JC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18483
JR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18484
List,
As far a
;
>
> 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 List
> *Subje
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
Peircers,
I blogged light revisions and added a few resource links to my last couple of
replies:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/06/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-12/
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/07/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-13/
Regards,
Jon
Martin, List,
I've been calling attention to what Peirce said
about the “Doctrine of Individuals”, what we'd
probably call a “Theory of Individuals”, for
quite some time, just for instance, here:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15673
http://web.archive.org/web/2002032
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 11
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/05/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-11/
Date : March 5, 2016 at 12:00 pm
Peircers,
I haven't caught up with the parts of this discussion that
branched off to questions about signs. S
Jerry, List,
You can link a horse to water
but you cannot make it click.
(It just goes to show, by the way,
that an index, like every other sign,
is a symbol at the end of the day.)
Regards,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
> Hi Jon, list,
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 eve
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 10
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/04/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-10/
Date : March 4, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Peircers,
Continuing efforts to clarify the distinctive character and
role of abductive reasoning within the we
> 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 is more like “infe
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 9
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/03/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-9/
Date : March 3, 2016 at 2:30 pm
Peircers,
Resistant misconceptions are never so resistant as
when they hide encapsulated in catchy catchphrases.
Jon, list,
That's a beautiful way of putting it and I completely agree. The only
place where I disagree is about where one should go to find that example by
which to sharpen up our awareness for articulating complexity of inquiry
processes, for there must be many options available to us.
However
Jerry, List,
I just think that the tools Peirce gave us for articulating
complex cases of inquiry processes, as mediated by complex
cases of triadic sign relations, are worth sharpening up
to the point where we can make a significant difference
in our understanding of real-world phenomena and the
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 o
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 8
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/02/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-8/
Date : March 2, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Peircers,
In Peirce's theory of inquiry none of the three basic types
of inference is reducible to any mixture of
Jon,
You suggest reading of Logic of Relatives because it worked for you in
interpreting Peirce. I use the same argument for phi spiral abduction.
So, why Logic of Relatives and not phi spiral?
Well, because Peirce. But both are Peirce. But Logic is closer to Peirce
because he wrote it.
Gary, List,
Time and again Peirce refers to his logic of relatives
as the means necessary to understand the more complex
and subtle issues in his theory of inquiry and his
theory of signs. I find this to be good advice.
The best antidote for confusion about triadic sign relations
and the three
t;> *From:* Jerry Rhee
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
>> *Cc:* Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 6:28 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy,
>> Inquiry
>>
>> Hi Edwina,
>>
>&g
aven't been following that thread.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jerry Rhee
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 01, 2016 6:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, In
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 -
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4
emiosic process is a process of truth-gathering and
> truth-representation. 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
>
>
>
ny 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
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abdu
nd. It is
>> this continuity of Form which enables this continuity of 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 withi
ts formed within a habit, which are in interaction with other
> discrete units. As formed and networked, [which is not at all similar to
> referencing] they are therefore 'meaningful'.
>
> Edwina
>
>
> - Original Message - From:
> To: "'Peirce L
The 'mode of being' is a Sign operating within the
continuity of habits.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Martin Kettelhut
To: sb
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
27;.
>
> Edwina
>
>
> ----- Original Message - From:
> To: "'Peirce List'"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
>
>
> Frances to Edwina and Listers--- You
rencing] they are
therefore 'meaningful'.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From:
To: "'Peirce List'"
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy,
Inquiry
Frances to Edwina and Listers---
You pa
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 reference
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 a
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 confusi
From: "Jerry LR Chandler"
To: "Peirce List"
Cc: "Määttänen Kirsti"
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy,
Inquiry
List, Kirsti:
Interesting perspective!
May I extend your insight a b
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 o
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 to
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 6
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/02/29/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-6/
Date : February 29, 2016 at 6:01 pm
Peircers,
There appears to be a prevalent misunderstanding about the
relevance of Bayes' theorem, probabiliti
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 mania
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 5
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/02/29/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-5/
Date : February 29, 2016 at 10:00 am
Peircers,
I've been paying more attention lately to the general reception
of Peirce among the e-literati and
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 to
Post : Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 4
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/02/26/abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-4/
Date : February 26, 2016 at 9:00 am
Re: Facebook Discussion on The Ecology of Systems Thinking
• https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/p
Stephen, List,
I like messages that are medium-sized myself ...
I'm sure I've spent more time over the last 49 years
justifying the ways of Peirce to people who scarcely
knew his name much less the thrust of his work but
some of the issues he raised from infancy so many
years ago have popped up
75 matches
Mail list logo
