Menarik ini buat dipikirkan ...(thank kang @didi ) Peirces outline of the scientific method in §III–IV of A Neglected Argument[145] is summarized below (except as otherwise noted). There he also reviewed plausibility and inductive precision (issues of critique of arguments). 1. Abductive (or retroductive) phase. Guessing, inference to explanatory hypotheses for selection of those best worth trying. From abduction, Peirce distinguishes induction as inferring, on the basis of tests, the proportion of truth in the hypothesis. Every inquiry, whether into ideas, brute facts, or norms and laws, arises from surprising observations in one or more of those realms (and for example at any stage of an inquiry already underway). All explanatory content of theories comes from abduction, which guesses a new or outside idea so as to account in a simple, economical way for a surprising or complicated phenomenon. Oftenest even a well-prepared mind guesses wrong. But the modicum of success of our guesses far exceeds that of random luck, and seems born of attunement to nature by instincts developed or inherent, especially insofar as best guesses are optimally plausible and simple in the sense of the facile and natural, as by Galileos natural light of reason and as distinct from logical simplicity.[146] Abduction is the most fertile but least secure mode of inference. Its general rationale is inductive: it succeeds often enough and it has no substitute in expediting us toward new truths.[147] In 1903 Peirce called pragmatism the logic of abduction.[148] It points to efficiency. Coordinative method leads from abducing a plausible hypothesis to judging it for its testability[149] and for how its trial would economize inquiry itself.[150] The hypothesis, being insecure, needs to have practical implications leading at least to mental tests and, in science, lending themselves to scientific tests. A simple but unlikely guess, if uncostly to test for falsity, may belong first in line for testing. A guess is intrinsically worth testing if it has instinctive plausibility or reasoned objective probability, while subjective likelihood, though reasoned, can be misleadingly seductive. Guesses can be chosen for trial strategically, for their caution (for which Peirce gave as example the game of Twenty Questions), breadth, or incomplexity.[151] One can hope to discover only that which time would reveal through a learners sufficient experience anyway, so the point is to expedite it; economy of research is what demands the leap, so to speak, of abduction and governs its art.[150] 2. Deductive phase. Two stages: i. Explication. Unclearly premissed, but deductive, analysis of the hypothesis so as to render its parts as clear as possible. ii. Demonstration: Deductive Argumentation, Euclidean in procedure. Explicit deduction of hypothesiss consequences as predictions about evidence to be found. Corollarial or, if needed, Theorematic. 3. Inductive phase. Evaluation of the hypothesis, inferring from observational or experimental tests of its deduced consequences. The long-run validity of the rule of induction is deducible from the principle (presuppositional to reasoning in general) that the real is only the object of the final opinion to which sufficient investigation would lead;[139] anything to which no such process would ever lead would not be real. Induction involving the ongoing accumulation of evidence follows a method which, sufficiently persisted in, will diminish the error below any predesignate degree. Three stages: i. Classification. Unclearly premissed, but inductive, classing of objects of experience under general ideas. ii. Probation: direct Inductive Argumentation. Crude or Gradual. Crude Induction, founded on experience in one mass (CP 2.759), presumes that future experience on a question will not differ utterly from all past experience (CP 2.756). Gradual Induction makes a new estimate of the proportion of truth in the hypothesis after each test, and is Qualitative or Quantitative. Qualitative Induction depends on estimating the relative evidential weights of the various qualities of the subject class under investigation (CP 2.759; see also CP 7.114–20). Quantitative Induction depends on how often, in a fair sample of instances of S, S is found actually accompanied by P that was predicted for S (CP 2.758). It depends on measurements, or statistics, or counting. iii. Sentential Induction. ...which, by Inductive reasonings, appraises the different Probations singly, then their combinations, then makes self-appraisal of these very appraisals themselves, and passes final judgment on the whole result. Against Cartesianism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce
Posted on: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 07:37:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015