Re: Gil Kalai • Avi Wigderson : “Integrating Computational Modeling, Algorithms, and Complexity into Theories of Nature Marks a New Scientific Revolution!”
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:
- Is deduction alone sufficient?
- Are deduction and induction irreducible to each other and sufficient in tandem?
- Are there three irreducible types of inference: abduction, deduction, induction?
cc: Systems Science • Structural Modeling • Ontolog Forum • Laws of Form • Cybernetics
Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 1 | Inquiry Into Inquiry
You might be interested in a paper I’ve been working on for a while. I argue in it that abduction, in Peirce’s understanding, is really just a unique application of deduction. Message me if you want it. Trying to get it published so don’t want to throw it up here.
I have studied the kinds of ‘pro’ and ‘con’ arguments used in discussing design and planning proposals and found that they are not fitting into either one of the three categories. (E.g. “The Structure and Evaluation of Planning Arguments”, Informal Logic December 2015, or “The Fog Island Argument”, XLibris 2009.) Though one reader suggested they were forms of abduction. Another researcher suggested the label of ‘conductive’ argument; I’m not comfortable with either label. (Thorbjoern Mann)
Hi Thorbjørn,
Is this the current version?
• The Structure and Evaluation of Planning Arguments
Regards,
Jon