Re: SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Fred,
>
> I extend my reply to your note of a couple of days ago.
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~RECITATIVE~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
> > I was not suggesting that paraconsistent logic or
> > probabilistic reasoning or non-demonstrative forms
> > of inference be used. (I've not read about them.)
>
> With respect to what various people have their "habits and traditions" (HAT's)
> of calling "approximate", "contingent", "empirical", "inexact", "non-apodictic",
> "non-demonstrative", "probable" kinds or modes or styles or types of reasoning --
> not to mention several other choice names that I have chosen not to list here --
> well, you most likely know a little bit more beyond not having read the names,
> as "abductive reasoning" is just another name for "diagnosis", "guessing",
> "hypothesizing", and so on, while "inductive reasoning", having abdicated
> the Arthurian Siege, the Damocletian Throne, and the Promethean Resort,
> the very plancks and platforms of initiative and risk, to those pluckier
> knacks of the abductive guild -- at least, this is how Perseans set their
> schemes upon that Chair So Perilous -- this leaves induction to clean up the
> mess that is left behind, in that conscientious and dutiful Epimethean manner,
> after the party and the shouting and the shooting is over, wearily to count the
> crumbs and to reckon up the fit thing to say when it comes time for the Epilogue.
> In brief, inductive reasoning, to some, is just the art of the post hoc summation.
>
> > I was rejecting the "Into the Sky"/"Into the Ground"
> > dead-end that Jon Awbrey and Chris Menzel describe.
>
> We all enjoy ceratin habits of thought, inborn or inbred, that lead us
> to read some intrusion of our thus-borne automatic beliefs into a text --
> we could not avoid this short of shying away from every ever-risky act
> of interpretation itself -- but I believe that you have been a bit too
> automatic in your reading of what I wrote last time. The point that I
> was trying to make is precisely that, in order to deploy our deductive
> reasoning, mechanized and modified and mortified and motivated, or not,
> within that greater context of scientific inquiry -- what Peirce noted
> as a three-phase cycle of inquiry that enjoinered abductive, deductive,
> and inductive plancks of reasoning, most proto-typically in that order --
> we cannot avoid these very sorts of crashes. It is the stratagematics
Jon,
I'm sorry I heard something a little discrepant fron what you said/meant
by
"Into the Sky" and "Into the Ground".
The discrepancy as I hear it, is that
you were describing
an OK series of preliminary SUO versions of an iterative process,
and I was hearing/thinking about
a (to me) not-OK final (released/for-use) SUO version.
-Fred
> of approximation, error-correction, estimation, iteration, reiteration,
> eternal recursion, and so on, therefore, to try and make these crashes
> happen when the ground and the sky are still near enough by us that it
> all just seems like a whole lot of dancing and jumping and skipping or
> just plain walking. That is the way of the Peripatetic; get my drift?
>
...
...
...
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~OITAUNETSE~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Let me know if any of this is beginning to make sense
> to you -- scary as I know that the very idea might be!
Makes sense. Not scary. Thank you.
But I had to put your reply and your extended reply into files
and "diff" them to be sure of what was the diff! ;8-(
-Fred
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤