Aug 7, 2019, 5:45:16 AM8/7/19
Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message as abuse
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG, Laws Of Form Group, Cybernetic Communications
Cf: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry : 26
Re: Gil Kalai : Combinatorics and More
Re: Avi Wigderson : "Integrating Computational Modeling, Algorithms, and
Complexity into Theories of Nature Marks a New Scientific Revolution!"
My 2 cents, or maybe 3 ?
Projects giving a central place to computation in scientific inquiry go
back to Hobbes and Leibniz, at least, and then came Babbage and Peirce.
One of the first issues determining their subsequent development is
the degree to which one identifies computation and deduction. The
next question concerns how many types of reasoning one counts as
contributing to the logic of empirical science:
1. Is deduction alone sufficient?
2. Are deduction and induction irreducible to each other and sufficient in tandem?
3. Are there three irreducible types of inference: abduction, deduction, induction?
On 4/26/2019 9:45 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> In pragmatic semiotics, concept formation like hypothesis formation
> falls under the heading of abductive inference.? There is of course
> a lot that's been said and a lot more to say about that, but things
> are too much in flux right now to allow for an organized exposition.
> So here's just a teaser from Peirce on how concepts evolve from one
> level of complexity to the next, using incidentally a paradigm from
> the world of physics.
> C.S. Peirce ? A Guess at the Riddle