I enjoy Sungchul's blending of Peircian semiotic with other fields. Though I do find it hard to follow at some parts and the details are murky. Regarding the syllogism I think it has the form of abduction presented 'on a new list of categories.'
On 05/07/2014 5:59 PM, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: Whether you reformat it with 'C-B' or B-C', it's still invalid. B-C which is how you originally set it up, is formally invalid - Illicit Major C-B is formally invalid - Illicit Minor. Here's another example. All soccer players are men. All soccer players are young. Therefore, all men are young. And even if you try to reverse the conclusion into All who are young are men...it's still fallacious. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> Cc: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; < [email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Burgin's Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs. > Edwina wrote: > > ". . . your syllogism is both formally false and (p70514-1) > logical...
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
