Sung - go study some syllogistic logic before you make your incorrect
assertions.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungchul Ji
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
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
To: Edwina Taborsky ; biosemiotics
Cc: PEIRCE-L
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
To: PEIRCE-L
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
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] 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 .
