Re: SUO: Re: Foundlings Of Ontology
CSP wrote many things about deduction, induction, and
abductgion. It is important to realize that Peirce's
trichotomy is a metalevel category that can be used to
generate multiple categories in multiple ways.
I am traveling right now, so I don't have access to all my
books and notes, so I can't quote the appropriate references.
However, if someone would be so kind as to look up CSP's
classification of the various fields of science (including
both the physical and the psychical), there is something
in his later philosophy where he puts mathematics at the top,
and everything else under it. In that same classification,
he subdivides the field of "critical logic" into "deduction,
induction, and abduction" in that order.
>RM, quoting JS:
>
> | Peirce also applied his trichotomy to subdivide these subfields.
> | In analyzing the techniques of logical reasoning, he observed that
> | deduction exemplifies Firstness because it depends only on the syntax
> | of propositions. Induction exemplifies Secondness because it depends
on
> | a dyadic relation between propositions and reality. In looking for the
> | missing third, he discovered the principle of abduction, which generates
> | new hypotheses, which are further tested by the techniques of deduction
> | and induction.
>
>RM, citing C.S. Peirce....
As I said above, I don't believe that those citations
contradict what I said in this paragraph.
I also agree with Jon A. that Peirce discovered parallels
with Aristotle's classifications, but many other people had
read the same material without discovering abduction. As
Heraclitus observed, such discoveries are only made by people
who "expect the unexpected" in just the right way. So I would
stand by my claim that Peirce was primed by his own trichotomy
to interpret Aristotle's terms in his characteristic way.
John Sowa