 |
 |
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 [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 17/02/2015, at 21:46, 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------