Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!seismo!rlgvax!cliff
From: cliff@rlgvax.UUCP (Cliff Joslyn)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Logic and Coercion
Message-ID: <605@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Aug-87 12:27:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.605
Posted: Tue Aug 11 12:27:20 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Aug-87 02:26:10 EDT
References: <9962@duke.cs.duke.edu> <7836@mimsy.UUCP> <10001@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc, Reston VA
Lines: 28
Keywords: basilisk

In article <10001@duke.cs.duke.edu>, mps@duke.cs.duke.edu (Michael P. Smith) writes:
> In article <7836@mimsy.UUCP> flink@mimsy.UUCP (Paul V Torek) writes:
> >What is the difference between proof and explanation supposed to be?
> >Presumably, not in logical form:  most of what I would commonly call
> >explanations would take the form of modus ponens; and a proof can
> >certainly have this form.
>
> [ discussion of deduction, induction, and abduction ] 

So, to summarize:

1: A->B
2: A
3: B

Deduction: { 1,2 } -> 3
Induction: { 1,3 } -> 2
Abduction: { 2,3 } -> 1

Now return to the original question.  Presumably proof is deduction.  Is
explanation induction, abduction, or perhaps either (i.e. ~deduction)?


-- 
O--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, Computer Consoles Inc., Reston, Virginia, but my opinions.
| UUCP: ..!seismo!rlgvax!cliff  Phone: (703) 648-3346 - W (703) 524-1962 - H
V All the world is biscuit shaped