[PEN-L:11408] re: abduction

[knowware@xxxxxxxx (Tom Walker)]

Jim Devine wrote,

>And why can't adduction play a role? (Adduction,
>often spelled "abduction" (which sounds more fun), refers to figuring out
>"answers to specific questions so that a satisfactory explanatory 'fit' is
>obtained" using both induction and deduction, according to David Hackett
>Fischer, quoted in Joshua Goldstein, LONG CYCLES: PROSPERITY AND WAR IN THE
>MODERN AGE, p. 179.)

Perhaps abduction has gotten a bad name from its association with
kidnappers. Q-methodology is described by its proponents as an abductory
method. I doing a q-study right now (attitudes to work time and the
millennium), so I suppose I could say I'm an abductor. But whatever happened
to plain old duction? I suspect that a lot of the mental landscape is held
together by sheer duction in the same way that much of the pre-post-modern
objective world was held together by duct tape. Who ever heard of induct
tape, deduct tape or abduct tape, anyway?

Regards,

Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA
knowware@xxxxxxxx
(604) 688-8296
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm