Posted by
glen ep ropella on
Apr 10, 2013; 2:42pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fwd-New-post-The-Loud-and-Clear-Message-that-the-TED-Controversy-is-Sending-tp7582434p7582629.html
On 04/09/2013 11:13 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> But if you think I ought to have
> a look at it, I will. In general, I am a fan of Peirce's earlier usage,
> that seemed to give hope that we could work out in some detail the right
> thinking by which fruitful conjectures are arrived at. In short, I don't
> think that abduction is a post-modernist crap shoot.
No, I don't think you should look at "The Reach of Abduction". It's a
good book and it helps me understand the subject, because it's a more
formal/technical treatment without all the prosaic gymnastics others use
to talk about it.
> It argues that a form of quasi-circular thinking, "recursive theory,"
> is useful in the development of a science so long is one is
> scrupulous in avoiding its pitfalls.[...] So, in the right hands, this
> quasi circular explanation would lead to a more precise description
> of the properties of morphine that put people to sleep.
>
>
> Peter died last year, despite being many years my junior, and since I cannot
> be trusted, on my own, to get these things right, I attach a link to the
> abstract <
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/id33.html>
Thanks. I'll take a look at that. As you know, I'm a fan of
circularity, especially when it can be formalized as in Aczel's
non-well-founded sets. But I'm worried that a "recursive" rhetoric
might come a bit too close to confirmation bias or motivated reasoning,
which can be consequences of the type of long term consensus you're
arguing for.
--
glen e. p. ropella
http://tempusdictum.com 971-255-2847
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com