Edwina,
I appreciate your careful analysis of my syllogism, but I disagree with
your conclusion that my syllogism is
" . . . a circular argument and thus fallacious, as a syllogism, it is
invalid (070315-1)
because of the logical error of the undistributed middle"
The reason for my disagreeing with your conclusion is given below.
You wrote:
"The syllogistic fallacy that you make is:
(070315-2)
[ALL] X is y.
[ALL] Z is y.
Therefore [All] Z is X.
The above is your format. It is invalid...because the 'middle term' of 'y'
that connects the two (X and Z) is not distributed. . . . . "
Syllogism (070315-2) is a misrepresentation of my original syllogism,
(070315-3), which is stated more clearly as (070315-4):
1. We think, write, and speak in signs
(070315-3)
2. Peirce's research was devoted to signs
3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are
Peirce-related
1. We think/write/speak in signs
(070315-4)
2. Signs are Peirce-related because he studied all kinds of signs
3. Therefore all our thoughts/writings/speeches are Peirce-related (in one
way or another)
You may not agree that (070315-3) and (070315-4) are equivalent (if you
don't, I would like to know the reason why you think so), but that was the
key point of my syllogism.
My syllogism, (070315-4), is of the following format, which differs from
your (070315-2):
[ALL] X is y.
(070315-5)
[ALL] Y is z.
Therefore [All] X is z.
where X = our thoughts/writings/speeches
y = signs
z = the object of the scientific investigation by Peirce, and
hence "Peirce-related"
As you can see, (070315-5), does not involve any logical error, since the
middle term is distributed in both premises.
All the best.
Sung
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sung, apart from being a circular argument and thus fallacious, as a
> syllogism, it is invalid because of the logical error of the undistributed
> middle. Look it up; I know that you don't understand syllogistic logic.
>
> The syllogistic fallacy that you make is:
> [ALL] X is y.
> [ALL] Z is y.
> Therefore [All] Z is X.
>
> The above is your format. It is invalid...because the 'middle term' of
> 'y' that connects the two (X and Z) is not distributed. Again - I'm not
> going to explain syllogistic logic to you.
>
> An example would be:
> ALL rabbits have fur.
> ALL (or my) dog has fur.
> Therefore my dog is a rabbit.
>
> That's the error you made.
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sungchul Ji <[email protected]>
> *To:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>
> Edwina wrote:
>
> "Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and
> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that
> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and
> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of
> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness."
>
> I disagree with your conclusions above, since (i) I do not see any
> logical fallacy in what I said in my previous post which is summarized
> below nor (ii) did I say anything about the meaning of "sign".
>
> 1. We think, write, and speak in signs.
> 2. Peirce's research was devoted to signs.
> 3. Any topics about which we think, write, and speak are therefore are
> Peirce-related.
>
> Perhaps my understanding of your criticisms is incomplete. If you think
> so, I would appreciate your clarifications.
>
> All the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and
>> all topics'. It's a Peircean list.
>>
>> Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and
>> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that
>> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and
>> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of
>> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness.
>>
>> As for Stephen and his matriarchal/patriarchal claims, my view is that
>> they are analytically incorrect; I consider that he has ignored the
>> economic mode and societal infrastructure as primarily causal of both these
>> modes of organization (matriarchy/patriarchy) - but, since these factors
>> are neither Peircean nor even semiosic, then, I have no intention of
>> getting into a debate on this list.
>>
>> But I do acknowledge Stephen Rose's post - for often, even when a post
>> states that it is Peircean related - this relation may be as invalid as
>> Sung's illogical claim above - or, as well, a few posters seem
>> isolate-in-themselves, speaking only for and about their own focus. This
>> can result in a monologue or a dialogue engaged in only by one other
>> person. That's what the 'delete' button is for.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]>
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sung, all,Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we
>> can't emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for
>> Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on
>> 'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged,
>> multi-post discussions of a given topic should clarify and thematize the
>> topic's relation to Peirce because that is what is promised to subscribers
>> and that is what most subscribers expect.That has been and will continue to
>> be the policy of peirce-l.Best, Ben Udell as co-manager, peirce-l.*
>>
>> On 7/2/2015 5:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>>
>> Bev, Gary, lists,
>>
>> I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study
>> of signs and "Peirce-related" is thus "sign-related", it seems to me.
>> Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS,
>> and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as
>> Peirce-related in one way or another, including linguistic texts, chemical
>> equations, mathematical formulas, network diagrams, pictures, and whatever
>> else that may emerge in the future as NEW means of communication and
>> representation through the Internet.
>>
>> In other words, for me, semiotics is not yet closed. Its future should
>> not be confined to studying MACRO-SEMIOTICS as constructed by Poinsot,
>> Peirce, and others but should be open to studying both MICRO-SEMIOTICS as
>> currently being developed in biosemiotics (.e.g., DNA as a molecular sign)
>> and what may be called 'COSMO-SEMIOTICS' as may be developed in the future
>> (e.g., viewing spiral galaxies as cosmological signs). Imagine what
>> fantastic syntheses in philosophy Pierce's genius might be accomplishing
>> now were he alive today !
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than
>>> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more
>>> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style.
>>>
>>> Bev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> 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]>[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 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>> [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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
> [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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
--
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 [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 .
