Re: SUO: Re: Foundlings Of Ontology
But somehow in "THE TRICHOTOMY OF ARGUMENTS" (CP 2.266) there are three
types of inductions ( a "Pooh-pooh Argument", an "Experimental
Verification of a general Prediction" or an "Argument from a Random
Sample"), two types of deductions ("Necessary" or "Probable") and only
one type of abduction. "Necessary Deduction" further divides into
"Corollarial" and "Theorematic" deduction ....
Now the fact that one looks upon abduction from a different perspective,
i.e. considered as the relatively genuine genus (thirdness) of a
previous division instead of being the most degenerate (firstness),
would in principle give in the next generation three subclasses of
abductions. In that case, since there is a perspective from which you
see it that way, can you make explicit the three distinct ways in which
abduction can "mediate" between deduction and induction?
JM
"John F. Sowa" wrote:
>
> 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
--
Jean-Marc Orliaguet ( jmo@medialab.chalmers.se )
- http://www.medialab.chalmers.se/people/jmo/
- Tel: +46 31 772 8581