Changes

<p>In the first place with reference to the nature of the problem itself.  It is not required to prove that deduction, induction, or hypothesis are valid.  On the contrary, they are to be accepted as conditions of thought.  It had been shown in previous lectures that they are so.  Nor was a mode of calculating the probability of an induction or hypothesis now demanded;  this being a merely subsidiary problem at best and one which may for ought we could yet see, be absurd.  What we now wanted was an articulate statement and a satisfactory demonstration of those transcendental laws which give rise to the possibility of each kind of inference.</p>

<p>In the first place with reference to the nature of the problem itself.  It is not required to prove that deduction, induction, or hypothesis are valid.  On the contrary, they are to be accepted as conditions of thought.  It had been shown in previous lectures that they are so.  Nor was a mode of calculating the probability of an induction or hypothesis now demanded;  this being a merely subsidiary problem at best and one which may for ought we could yet see, be absurd.  What we now wanted was an articulate statement and a satisfactory demonstration of those transcendental laws which give rise to the possibility of each kind of inference.</p>

<p>Those grounds of possibility we found to be that All things, forms, symbols are symbolizable.  For these laws must refer to symbolization because symbolization and inference are the same.  As grounds of possibility they must refer to the possibility of symbolization.  As logical laws they must consider the reference of symbols in general to objects.  Now symbols in general have three relations to objects;  namely so far as the latter contain things, forms, symbols.  Finally as general principles they must be universal. (Peirce 1865, CE 1, 289–290).</p>

<p>Those grounds of possibility we found to be that All things, forms, symbols are symbolizable.  For these laws must refer to symbolization because symbolization and inference are the same.  As grounds of possibility they must refer to the possibility of symbolization.  As logical laws they must consider the reference of symbols in general to objects.  Now symbols in general have three relations to objects;  namely so far as the latter contain things, forms, symbols.  Finally as general principles they must be universal.</p>

 

<p>(Peirce 1865, CE 1, 289&ndash;290).</p>

|}

|}