8 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2019
  2. Jul 2019
    1. He went on to describe Charles Sanders Peirce, a prominent figure in Hopkins’ history whose theory he finds delightful for applying to detective fiction. “He says, it’s not all induction, it’s not all deduction, it’s rather what he calls abduction, which is a combination of both, which sometimes is just guessing. He has a lot of different names for the notion of abduction.”
  3. May 2019
  4. Sep 2018
  5. Feb 2017
    1. This conclusion is not founded on this single instance, but on this instance compared with a general experience of the regularity of this clement in all its operations.

      I am thinking here of Darwin's Moth, a species of moth Charles Darwin concluded must exist, from the shape of a certain orchid, 40 years before the moth itself was discovered. It is not the induction from orchid->moth, but dozens of moth-orchid interactions that lets you fill in the probable details.

      e. Actually, I think this is better an example of analogy, now that I think about it.

      e2. Moth-Orchid Dynamics would be a good name for a rock band

    2. In moral reasoning we ascend from pos-~ibility, by an insensible gradation, to probabil-ity, and thence, in the same manner, to the sum-mit of moral certainty.

      I believe Campbell addresses some of the uncertainty of Inductive Reasoning here. The phrase "insensible gradation" seems meaningful--how we go from a possibility to moral certainty is something fundamentally difficult in a manner Hume cannot accept. But Campbell explains in this section many of the difficulties of this, and how it's still useable, for moral judgment.

      On the same side, I come back to Bayesian Probabilities, wondering if Campbell knew about them, and how they transfer statistical, mathematical knowledge towards determining if a hypothesis is true. Once again, I'm hesitant that I'll exceed my grasp of stats if I talk to much about it, though.

  6. Sep 2013
    1. The difference between example and enthymeme is made plain by the passages in the Topics where induction and syllogism have already been discussed. When we base the proof of a proposition on a number of similar cases, this is induction in dialectic, example in rhetoric; when it is shown that, certain propositions being true, a further and quite distinct proposition must also be true in consequence, whether invariably or usually, this is called syllogism in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric. It is plain also that each of these types of oratory has its advantages.

      Huh??

    2. The example is an induction, the enthymeme is a syllogism, and the apparent enthymeme is an apparent syllogism. I call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example a rhetorical induction. Every one who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: there is no other way.

      defining enthymeme, syllogism, induction, their use and purpose