Category Archives: Deduction

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 7

Posted on March 1, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peter Woit • Beyond Experiment The phrase “inference to the best explanation” was coined by Gilbert Harman in his attempt to explain abductive inference but it conveys the wrong impression to anyone who takes it as a substitute for … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems Engineering, Logic, Mental Models, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Systems | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 6

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peter Woit • Beyond Experiment There is a lot of misunderstanding about the requirement of falsifiability.  At root it is simply the idea that an empirical law is not a logical tautology.  I don’t see any reason to dispense … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems Engineering, Logic, Mental Models, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Systems | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 5

Posted on February 29, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Peter Woit • Beyond Experiment Peirce is simply describing the process by which we seize on an initial hypothesis or model.  That choice will in practice be influenced by all sorts of previous experiences with the phenomenon in question … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems Engineering, Logic, Mental Models, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Systems | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 4

Posted on February 26, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: FB | Ecology Of Systems Thinking • Steven Wallis Peirce sought to understand what all varieties of inquiry, ranging from everyday reasoning and problem solving to full-fledged scientific method, have in common.  Taking a cue from Aristotle he developed … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Problem Solving, Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 3

Posted on February 17, 2016 by Jon Awbrey

Re: R.J. Lipton and K.W. Regan • Waves, Hazards, Guesses Aristotle’s apagoge, variously translated as abduction, reduction, or retroduction, is a form of reasoning common to two types of situations. Abduction may involve either of the following two operations. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Analogy, Aristotle, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Computation, Computational Complexity, Deduction, Induction, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Intelligent Systems, Logic, Problem Solving, Semiotics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Inquiry, Signs, Relations • 1

Posted on July 5, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Michael Harris • A Non-Logical Cognitive Phenomenon Human spontaneous non-demonstrative inference is not, overall, a logical process.  Hypothesis formation involves the use of deductive rules, but is not totally governed by them;  hypothesis confirmation is a non-logical cognitive phenomenon:  … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, Action, Analogy, C.S. Peirce, Cognition, Cognitive Science, Communication, Deduction, Foundations of Mathematics, Induction, Information, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Michael Harris, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatism, Relation Theory, Relevance, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Animated Logical Graphs • 9

Posted on May 24, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations The insight it takes to find a succinct axiom set for a theoretical domain falls under the heading of abductive or retroductive reasoning, a knack as yet refractory to computational attack, but … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 8

Posted on May 23, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations The most striking example of a “Primitive Insight Proof” (PIP❢) known to me is the Dawes–Utting proof of the Double Negation Theorem from the CSP–GSB axioms for propositional logic.  There is a … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Animated Logical Graphs • 7

Posted on May 22, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

Re: Ken Regan • The Shapes of Computations There are several issues of computation shape and proof style that raise their heads already at the logical ground level of boolean functions and propositional calculus.  From what I’ve seen, there are … Continue reading →

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Survey of Semiotic Theory Of Information • 1

Posted on May 17, 2015 by Jon Awbrey

This is a Survey of previous blog and wiki posts on the Semiotic Theory Of Information.  All my projects are exploratory in essence but this line of inquiry is more open-ended than most.  The question is: What is information and how … Continue reading →

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Communication, Control, Cybernetics, Deduction, Determination, Discovery, Doubt, Epistemology, Fixation of Belief, Induction, Information, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Information Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Interpretation, Invention, Knowledge, Learning Theory, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Peirce, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Pragmatic Information, Probable Reasoning, Process Thinking, Relation Theory, Scientific Inquiry, Scientific Method, Semeiosis, Semiosis, Semiotic Information, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Surveys, Triadic Relations, Uncertainty | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment