Glen,
I have yet to integrate my thinking about "convergence" (preferable to "consensus", I think) with the stuff about recursion, which was near-30 years ago. It was the sort of thing that I though Peter Lipton and I might do when we were old. Not sure I am man enough to do it alone. I think Peirce would say ... particularly the later Peirce ... that in recursive explanations lurks a form of "right-thinking" that cannot be described in the terms of formal logic
Remember that a click on the abstract gets you the whole paper, should you be curious.
By the way, there is a truly excellent summary of Peirce's thought, called On Peirce ... just a hundred pages ... and expensive for all of that ... just a pamphlet, really, .... but worth every penny, by Cornelis DeWaal (Wadsworth). My Peirce mentor also approves of it.
N
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen e p ropella
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 8:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] scientific evidence
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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |