SUO: Re: Building Ontologies Through Signs And Inquiries (BOTSAI)
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
JM = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
JM: I don't understand why in your example of missing the bus
you link expectation to deduction. You write:
JM, quoting JA:
| The name "reflection" seems to fit the process by which
| we can become aware of the previously automatic, implicit,
| and probably unconscious deduction that led to a current
| expectation, the one that is subject to conflict with
| a current observation, thereby generating a dilemma,
| a problem, or a surprise.
JM: This is where your mistake lies, abduction does not connect deduction
with induction because expectation has nothing to do with deduction in
the first place. For Peirce, expectation is a general idea whose being
is in futuro, of the nature of a habit. What you expect, you don't need
to deduce it from anything, you don't deduce your habits, do you?
"unconscious deduction"? What is that strange animal?
I distinquish between "expectation" and "hope".
Expectation is based on and projected forward
from previous experience. Hope is the common
nomen for a regulative principle, the springs
of whose fountains a moment's or a lifetime's
reflection will tell us that we eternally had
in our hearts in spite of never suspecting it.
This particular concept of expectation is a logical extension
of the usage that I had learned in probability and statistics.
Though I have never made any special effort to trace Peirce's
usages, I can't imagine that they would be terribly different.
Expectation is not exactly a habit, though we do have habits of expectation.
In its logical form an expectation is expressible by means of a proposition,
so it may be treated as a proposition affected by a modality or an attitude.
I think that you will find that expectations are generated in the fashion
of deductions. Unconscious deduction? That is what makes people tend to
react more reflexively than reflectively to the unherd of idea. One must
understand, of course, that when we build logical models of psychological
processes that these are what are known as "rational reconstructions", or
maybe "reconstructions within the circus of reason alone" is more precise.
Their job requirement is to emulate, up to informational equivalence, the
form or the gist of what might have happened in reality, no more, no less.
JM: PS: I must now subscribe to the other list to continue this discussion,
i.e. to the one not aimed at coming up with a standard.
I am confidant that you will use your own judgment.
The SUO Working Group is an open group, but it is
also what is so euphemistically and frequently
called a "diverse group", meaning I guess that
divers people have divers ideas about what it
will take to manifest a respectable standard.
In my own opinion, I think that it will take
attracting a wide variety of able hearts and
minds to the task, and you certainly have as
much qualification in that sense as many here.
There is a lot less screeching on the ONT List,
and it is human, all too human to try to apease
this or that act of intimidation, but do it too
often and soon nobody has any liberty to speak.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤