<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Abduction as Logical Inference</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/abduction-as-logical-inference/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/abduction-as-logical-inference/</link>
	<description>Musings on art, philosophy, mathematics, and physics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:40:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Blogging Birthday &#171; A Mind for Madness</title>
		<link>http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/abduction-as-logical-inference/#comment-370</link>
		<dc:creator>Blogging Birthday &#171; A Mind for Madness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:40:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=17#comment-370</guid>
		<description>[...] 5) I guess I should include Abduction as Logical Inference just because it is one of the most active and read posts of my blog. I&#8217;m not as fond of it on [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 5) I guess I should include Abduction as Logical Inference just because it is one of the most active and read posts of my blog. I&#8217;m not as fond of it on [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clark</title>
		<link>http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/abduction-as-logical-inference/#comment-44</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 23:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=17#comment-44</guid>
		<description>OK, I reread it and I *think* I see where you are going.  I just am not sure one can isolate abduction from the context one finds oneself in.  It may well be that the context of physics one finds oneself in changes ones abductive reasoning.  Indeed, as I understand Peirce, that is precisely what ought happen.  

But perhaps that&#039;s ultimately your point?  That this could only happen after a quantitative apparatus was developed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, I reread it and I *think* I see where you are going.  I just am not sure one can isolate abduction from the context one finds oneself in.  It may well be that the context of physics one finds oneself in changes ones abductive reasoning.  Indeed, as I understand Peirce, that is precisely what ought happen.  </p>
<p>But perhaps that&#8217;s ultimately your point?  That this could only happen after a quantitative apparatus was developed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clark</title>
		<link>http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/abduction-as-logical-inference/#comment-43</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 23:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=17#comment-43</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not quite sure what you are arguing vis a vis Peirce here.  Abduction is valid only to the degree it shows what &lt;i&gt;may&lt;/i&gt; be the case.  That&#039;s all it can do.  It is the logic of guesses that &lt;i&gt;tend&lt;/i&gt; to be right.  One can test it inductively but of course one could always be wrong in any inductive endeavor.  It seems that Peirce would argue that one must continue to inquire in a holistic fashion.  Thus other abductive inferences and inductive testing can&#039;t establish truth.  But Peirce doesn&#039;t think anything can establish truth in an absolute sense.  That can only be done by the ideal community of inquirers in the long run.

I just don&#039;t see what this would have to do with the qualitative/quantitative distinction.  (Which I think Peirce would see at best as a matter of degree)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not quite sure what you are arguing vis a vis Peirce here.  Abduction is valid only to the degree it shows what <i>may</i> be the case.  That&#8217;s all it can do.  It is the logic of guesses that <i>tend</i> to be right.  One can test it inductively but of course one could always be wrong in any inductive endeavor.  It seems that Peirce would argue that one must continue to inquire in a holistic fashion.  Thus other abductive inferences and inductive testing can&#8217;t establish truth.  But Peirce doesn&#8217;t think anything can establish truth in an absolute sense.  That can only be done by the ideal community of inquirers in the long run.</p>
<p>I just don&#8217;t see what this would have to do with the qualitative/quantitative distinction.  (Which I think Peirce would see at best as a matter of degree)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The 69th Philosophers&#8217; Carnival &#171; Possibly Philosophy</title>
		<link>http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/abduction-as-logical-inference/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>The 69th Philosophers&#8217; Carnival &#171; Possibly Philosophy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 10:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/?p=17#comment-37</guid>
		<description>[...] Ward suggests a counterexample to Abduction as Logical Inference with a simple quantum mechanical experiment. Posted at A Mind for [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Ward suggests a counterexample to Abduction as Logical Inference with a simple quantum mechanical experiment. Posted at A Mind for [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
