Edwina wrote: ". . . your syllogism is both formally false and (p70514-1) logically invalid...the Fallacy of the Illicit Major."
The logic behind my syllogism is as follows: Major premise: A = B Minor premise: A = C Conclusion: C = B where A = Burign's fundamental triad, B = the unification of mathematics; and C = the Peircean triad. Do you still think that my syllogism commits the Fallacy of the Illicit Major ? With all the best. Sung > Please, Sung - try to read a basic course in logic. Your endless attempts > to > link things with each other, whether it's Saussure with Peirce, or Bohr > with > Bohm or whatever - run into theoretical problems, empirical problems and > logical problems. > > Last time, your syllogism was invalid because of the Fallacy of Four > terms. > This time, your syllogism is both formally false and logically > invalid...the > Fallacy of the Illicit Major. > > As a comparison with your format, think about this comparable example. > > All logicians are men > All logicians are mean > Therefore all men are mean. > > Get it? Your syllogism makes the same error. Your terms of 'mathematics' > and 'Peircean sign' are undistributed in the premises and therefore, can't > be distributed in the conclusion - but you have done just that. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > To: <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 5:33 PM > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Burgin's Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs. > > >> (Undistorted figures are attached.) >> >> Stephen R on the Peirce list cited Peirce as saying: >> >> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to (070514-1) >> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to >> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to >> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of >> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, >> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in >> whatever other department there may be, shall appear >> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward >> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every >> subject." >> >> >> At least one of the potential "simple concepts" that Peirce is referring >> to above may turn out to be his concept of "irreducible triadicity" >> embedded in the following quote that Jon recently posted and further >> explained in Figure 1 and (070514-4): >> >> >> "Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. (070514-2) >> A definition of a sign will be given which no more >> refers to human thought than does the definition of >> a line as the place which a particle occupies, part >> by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is >> something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant >> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort >> of correspondence with something, C, its object, as >> that in which itself stands to C. It is from this >> definition, together with a definition of "formal", >> that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. >> I also make a historical review of all the definitions >> and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my >> definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological >> conception of logic has virtually been quite generally >> held, though not generally recognized." (NEM 4, 20-21). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> a b >> C --------> A --------> B >> | ^ >> | | >> |_______________________________| >> c >> >> Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the principle of >> irreducible >> triadicity as applied to the definition of a sign. A = sign; B = >> interpretant; and C = object. a = the sign-object relation (which can >> be >> iconic, indexical or symbolic); b = the sign-interpretant relation >> (which >> can be rheme, dicisign or argument); c = the object-interpretant >> relation >> (which is lacking in Peircean semiotics but may be provided by >> microsemiotics [1] or biosemiotics (e.g., [2, 3, 4]). >> >> >> >> "A is determined by C and determines B in such away (070514-3) >> that C is indirectly determined by B." >> >> The purpose of this email is to suggest the possible connection between >> the Peircean sign and Burgin's fundamental triad shown in Figure 2 that >> is >> postulated by Burgin to underlie all mathematical constructions [5, 6]. >> >> f >> X -------------- > I >> >> Figure 2. The "fundamental triads" (also called "named sets") of Burgin >> [5, attached, 6]. X = set of objects called "support"; I = set of >> objects >> called "names", and f = "naming relation". >> >> The key to connecting Burign's triad and Peircean sign is to re-express >> the 2-node network in Figure 2 in the form of the 3-node network shown >> in >> Figure 3 which is expressed in words in (070514-4). >> >> a b >> X -------- > f --------> I >> | ^ >> | | >> |_______________________________| >> c >> Figure 3. Burign's fundamental triad, Figure 2, re-expressed as an >> irreducible triad of Peirce, Figure 1. a = causality (?); b = convention >> (?); c = symbol grounding (?). >> >> >> "X determines f which in turn determines I in such (070514-4) >> a way that I is constrained by or correlated with X." >> >> >> If the Burgin-Peirce connection depicted in Figure 3 turns out to be >> true, >> the following syllogism would result: >> >> Burgin's fundamental triad can unify mathematics. [5, 6] (070514-5) >> >> Burign's fundamental triad is a Peircean sign. [Figure 3] (070514-6) >> >> Therefore Peircean sign (or semiotics) can unify >> (070514-7) >> mathematics. (Prediction}. >> >> With all the best. >> >> Sung >> __________________________________________________ >> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >> Rutgers University >> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >> 732-445-4701 >> >> www.conformon.net >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> . >> >> >> >> >> > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
