[FRIAM] abduction/induction confusion

[Nick Thompson]

Hi Glen, 

Thanks for your alert response.  All good questions.  Briefly, I was rereading his paper on probable inference and realized that the procedure he offered to justify induction (without reference to any assumption of uniformity in the world) was, it appeared, ABDUCTION.  In my present state of transcontinental relocation, I can't work out the implications of that.   Perhaps you will help me, later.  

Nik

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:03 PM
To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] abduction/induction confusion

This isn't intended to be part of the digestion of "What Pragmatism Is". So, I'm using the decades-old, standard, way of citing previous text:

On 03/25/2018 10:22 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> By the way, I think I finally realized how Pierce came to confuse abduction and induction in his later years.   In fact, not sure the distinction passes the pragmatic maxim.  Sad day [for me].

That's intriguing!  Perhaps you'll submit examples of his words where he doesn't confuse them, then where he does confuse them?  And when you say maybe the distinction isn't pragmatic, do you mean to say the early Peirce distinction?  Or do you mean any of it ... the way the terms are now used in studies of inference (by modern authors)?  That last question is important to me both personally and professionally.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove