[Inquiry] Re: Extension x Comprehension = Information

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

ECI.  Note 33

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

| But there are three distinct kinds of inference;
| inconvertible and different in their conception.
| There must, therefore, be three different principles
| to serve for their grounds.  These three principles
| must also be indemonstrable;  that is to say, each
| of them so far as it can be proved must be proved
| by means of that kind of inference of which it is
| the ground.  For if the principle of either kind of
| inference were proved by another kind of inference,
| the former kind of inference would be reduced to the
| latter;  and since the different kinds of inference are
| in all respects different this cannot be.  You will say
| that it is no proof of these principles at all to support
| them by that which they themselves support.  But I take it
| for granted at the outset, as I said at the beginning of my
| first lecture, that induction and hypothesis have their own
| validity.  The question before us is 'why' they are valid.
| The principles, therefore, of which we are in search,
| are not to be used to prove that the three kinds
| of inference are valid, but only to show how
| they come to be valid, and the proof of
| them consists in showing that they
| determine the validity of the
| three kinds of inference.
|
| CSP, CE 1, page 280.
|
| Charles Sanders Peirce, "On the Logic of Science",
| Harvard University Lectures of 1865, pages 161-302 in:
|
|'Writings of Charles S. Peirce:  A Chronological Edition',
|'Volume 1, 1857-1866', Peirce Edition Project,
| Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o