SUO: Re: Analogy
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John,
Well, then your slide summary is just a little misleading.
I took Dedre's course in analogies and mental models back
in 1985-86. Peirce's notion of mathematical formulas and
logical graphs is that they are partly iconic, not, say,
as much as venn diagrams, though, but partly indexical,
and also partly symbolic. Only the iconic aspect is
analogical. The trickiest part of structure-mapping,
which the rest of us call a "morphism", is the same
as with GPS -- the way NOT to climb a hill is to
do it in the syntactic space instead of in the
space of objective referents. In a similar
way, syntactic analogies are some of the
worst kind -- what you want is analogies
that respect the structure of objects.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> Yes, Aristotle was right. See the paper.
>
> >Not really. Aristotle, who CM tells me was a really smart guy,
> >analyzed analogy as a mixed syllogism of induction and deduction.
>
> And so was Peirce. See the paper.
>
> >Peirce, who I figured out for myself was a really smart guy, gave
> >the same analysis initially, then later followed it up with two
> >different analyses of analogy, each of which involved all three
> >of what he considered the primitive modes of inference, namely,
> >abduction, deduction, and induction.
>
> Peirce was using the term "diagrammatic reasoning" for what
> Dedre Gentner and others used the term "structure mapping".
> We all agree that Peirce was right, but you have to be careful
> in mapping the synsets.
>
> And Peirce used the term "analogy" for what the paper calls
> "analogical reasoning".
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o