Hi Carlos,
I agree. It seems obvious that understanding the background human biological
(rather than conceptual or subjective) processes is the key to defining and
correcting understanding of abduction and other forms of analysis and
abduction. It provides much of the interesting basis for defining,
critiquing and developing better theory about human activities up to this
point externalised by concepts such as 'abduction' and 'logic'.
One part of this frame of which abduction is a part that I was exploring in
terms of creative cognition is 'closure': the human internal process by
which one decides something is 'finished'. It offers part of the needed
bridge between conceptual theories (such as abduction) and purely biological
causal explanations of human internal and external activities 'Closure' is
especially interesting at the micro-level of how one decides on moving
attention between partial thoughts. It is, however, just one of the
processes by which abducted thoughts emerge and abduction occurs.
See Love, T. (2001). Concepts and Affects in Computational and Cognitive
Models of Designing. In J. S. Gero, M. L. Maher (Eds.), Computational and
Cognitive Models of Creative Design (pp. 3-23). Sydney: University of
Sydney. Available at http://www.love.com.au/docs/2001/CACCMD01.pdf
There are substantial literatures in this area under 'limits of reasoning'
both as critiques of the concepts of reasoning, and explorations of the
underlying processes, ignored, as you wrote, in the manner of sleight of
hand.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlos Pires
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2015 10:57 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: Re: Abduction
Dear Rolf,
What I wrote was:
"I will venture to suggest that 'abduction' is just a name for the sleight
of hand of analogy."
Interpreting the above statement as "abduction = analogy" is an error
similar to interpreting:
"What people call 'magic' is just the sleight of hand of the magician"
as
"sleight of hand = magician".
---
What I was trying to say is that abduction is built upon an exercise in
analogy.
Let's see the textbook example of abduction:
The surprising fact, C, is observed.
But if A were true, C would be a matter of course.
Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.
Now I ask:
What just happened between "C is observed" and "But if A were true" ?
Where does "A" come from?
That's what I was calling the "sleight of hand".
CSP called it "special aptitudes for guessing right".
My question is, of course, not new. Anyone who steps back and tries to find
out what has been thought and written about abduction will find that out.
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
On 18/02/2015, at 07:29, Rolf Johansson wrote:
> Dear Carlos,
> Abduction is more than analogy, I think. It is a good idea to step
> back and find out what has been thought and written about abduction
> already, before making a statement. I think again.
>
> Best wishes
> Rolf
>
> Carlos Pires wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I will venture to suggest that "abduction" is just a name for the
>> sleight of hand of analogy.
>> I think Dr. Salu is absolutely spot-on: this is a Peirce-ing silver
>> bullet that can hit any target but, in the end, explains nothing.
>> Sometimes, people need to step back from what I lusually call the
>> "canonic interpretation of the obligatory references" and think again.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> ==================================
>> Carlos Pires
>>
>>
>>
>> Rolf Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Ken,
>>> Yes "abduction is ... Nothing but guessing" (CP 7.219). "The
>>> abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of
>>> insight, although of extremely fallible insight" (CP 5.181). /First
>>> mentioned "insight"
>>> should
>>> be in italics as in the original text, by my mail cannot manage
>>> that./ "Nature is a far vaster and less clearly arranged repertory
>>> of facts than a census report; and if men had not come to it with
>>> special aptitudes for guessing right, it may well be doubted whether
>>> in the ten or twenty thousand years that they may have existed their
>>> greatest mind would have attained the amount of knowledge which is
>>> actually possessed by the lowest idiot" (CP 2.753). Peirce wrote.
>>> And good guessing requires contextual knowledge, no doubt about
>>> that. But for certainty, we need deductive reasoning to test our
>>> explanatory hypotheses - our results from abduction.
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Rolf
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
> studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|