C.S.
Pierce’s abduction is a consequence of pragmaticism. Pierce’s
wrote about trielectical thinking. That is something like an internal
three-part thought process Wankel engine. It is obviously a little
better than dialecticism. Jeff (James Stewart) could look out his
rear window, input sense data and make inferences about the material
observed. Reasoning about present and absent common human behavior
and the behavior of the salesman and his invalid wife who were
observed through their distant rear windows Jeff abducted a theory of
murder. How did Jeff observe facts and have a conversation with
himself (and others) to elicit a nominative thought process to
abducted a tentative conclusion?
Deductive
reasoning should generate a conclusion supported strictly by the
premises; each of which must be valid. Inductive reasoning allows new
items to be created from various premises without as much technical
rigor or validity. Abductive reasoning is a third way of tying
various abstract observations or facts together that precipitate
inferences about various premises that may or may not be related in
such a way as to form a valid theory. It is interesting that Pierce’s
third way is a third method of practical logic in parallel to his
three-part way of subjective cogitation about percepts and reason. I
like Pierce’s work yet I feel it is not correct today as a model
for neurological processing of thought. Contemporary advances in
neuroscience have made a different model than a trielectical system.
Abductive reasoning could emanate from the subconscious however,
formed from a myriad of sources of data stored in memory.
Jeff’s
nurse, a woman of practical knowledge, immediately agrees with Jeff’s
suspicion. Jeff's girl;friend, a wealthy society woman, is quite
skeptical and tries to persuade Jeff that his opinion is a diseased
one, until she sees the salesman packing up a large trunk with rope,
herself. At the moment she changed her mind completely to be in
complete agreement with Jeff. Perhaps witnessing a part of Jeff’s
narrative at a further point of the story line such that it would be
in complete agreement was the clincher that made her flip flop. It
might alternatively have bee the meaning of seeking a packing trunk
to her. She may have found it subconsciously troubling in meaning as
Jeff one day too might pack a trunk and move somewhere far away in
the world to pursue his photo-journalism profession she is not part
of.
Jeff’s
war buddy Detective Tom has a skeptical opinion. Without a body, hard
evidence or eye-witnesses of a crime he is unwilling to validate the
abduction line of murder that Jeff provides. He explained to Jeff
that the law won’t allow a search of the salesman’s apartment
without a warrant, and there aren’t sufficient grounds for a judge
to issue a warrant. Tom also has counter-abductive premises of the
salesman’s innocence; such as the exit of the invalid wife that
morning to catch a train and a telegram from her to the salesman
saying she had arrived at some distant place. The salesman’s
apartment lease was also nearly expired so the timing on moving was
reasonable.
Tom
would not relinquish his incredulity until hard evidence dropped into
his lap when Lisa found the ring of the salesman’s wife . Ye I knew
much earlier that the salesman was a murderer recognizing instantly
that the little dog that resembled Judy Garland’s little dog Toto,
digging in the garden of the perp, smelled something foul buried deep
below. An additional abduction I made was that Lisa being such a
sweet rich woman could not have been wrong in throwing all her
support behind Jeff’s theory. That simply is not the way Hollywood
wrote mystery stories in that era.
Lisa
at the end takes high risks and proves she is actually a smart,
wonderful, brave woman whom Jeff is too lucky to have devoted to him.
Unless the script was completely at the extremity of the bell curve
and Lisa was actually the killer just toying with Jeff whom she knew
was being a voyeur for eight weeks with his broken leg in a cast
looking out his rear window, the conclusion had to be that the
villainous philandering salesman that got rid of his old, invalid
wife in order to secure a newer and better upgrade was guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment