Edwina,
You wrote:
". . . The correct syllogistic format must conclude with S is P, or
(070315-10)
Minor Premise is Major Premise."
I am not sure if this statement is universally true. Think of the
following syllogism:
1. All molecules are composed of atoms.
(070315-11)
2. All atoms obey the laws of physics.
3. Therefore all molecules obey the laws of physics.
which is of the format
1. X is Y
(070315-12)
2. Y is Z
3. Therefore X is Z.
Syllogism(070315-11) is evidently true and hence so must be Syllogism
(07031512), but their conclusions do not begin with the minor premise as
you indicated in (070315-10). Do you still think your assertion
(0703156-10) is universally true ? Or is it possible that your assertion
is true only under some special conditions.
All the best.
Sung
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sung- stop slithering. Your original syllogism, as YOU stated it, is
> quite clear; I didn't misrepresent it; and it is invalid for the reasons I
> gave.
>
> Your new syllogism commits the Fallacy of Format. The correct syllogistic
> format must conclude with S is P, or Minor Premise is Major Premise. Your
> format doesn't do this.
>
> Here is your 'syllogism'...
>
> All thoughts are Signs
> All Signs are Peircean
> Therefore all thoughts are Peircean.
>
> Your format is
> All P-M
> All M-S
> Therefore P-S.
> [P=major premise; M=middle term; S=minor premise]
>
> Your format above is invalid. The conclusion must begin with the Minor
> Premise. But your conclusion leads with the Major Premise of 'thoughts';
> it must lead with the Minor Premise of 'Peircean'. You can only conclude,
> logically, that 'all that is Peircean deals with thoughts/speech etc'. You
> cannot conclude that 'all that is thought/spoken etc..is Peircean'.
>
> You might want to look up the format of syllogisms.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Sungchul Ji <[email protected]>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> ; biosemiotics
> <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 3:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>
> 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
>
>
--
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 .
