Hi markku, Thanks for the valuable reference. I will look it up in due course.
All the best. Sung On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:18 PM, marccu s <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://books.google.fi/books?id=8g3wCAAAQBAJ&pg=PR2&lpg=PR2&dq=jaakko+hintikka+syllogism&source=bl&ots=xTNQhyg3bN&sig=P3jR0DSlowtaMo_0CpTnpC85vtU&hl=fi&sa=X&ei=pp2ZVYPTNImWsgGi5L_gCQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=jaakko%20hintikka%20syllogism&f=false > > > kindly, markku > > > Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti > > *Lähettäjä:* Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> > *Lähetetty:* sunnuntai, 5. heinäkuuta 2015 23:49 > *Vast.ott:* [email protected] > > Helmut, Edwina, lists, > > I did not use the term "Peircean" but "Peirce-related" in my 'syllogism' : > > 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) > > On 6/3/2015 at 4:17 PM, Ewdina wrote: > > "Here is your 'syllogism'... > > All thoughts are Signs > > (070515-1) > All Signs are Peircean > Therefore all thoughts are Peircean." > > This seemingly trivial substitution of "Peirce-related" with "Peircean" > may have contributed to her confusing syntactical analysis of my syllogism, > (070315-4). The modifier "Peirce-related" has two distinct meanings -- > (i) Active: PEIRCE STUDIED and characterized the laws of all kinds of > signs, and (ii) Passive: we use signs of all kinds STUDIED BY PEIRCE. > Therefore, Syllogism (070315-4) has 4 categorical terms (our thoughts, > signs, actively Peirce-related, passively Peirce-related), unlike the usual > syllogisms which have only 3 (our thoughts, signs, Peircean), thus > invalidating Edwina's transformation of my 4-term syllogism, (070315-4), to > her 3-term one, (070515-1), and hence her conclusion that my syllogism is > logically fallacious. If this analysis is right, my 4-term syllogism may > best be viewed as implementing 'modal logic' rather than syllogistic logic > (to the best of my knowledge). > > As I pointed out in my post dated 07/03/2015 3:16 PM, Syllogism > (070315-4), has the following format: > > [All] X is y > > (070315-5) > [All] Y is z > Therefore [All] X is z > > This syllogistic format is different from the Aristotelian format, > > [All] X is y > > [All] Y is z > Therefore [All] Y is x. > > This difference cannot be used as the basis for judging that any syllogism > of the former format is automatically fallacious as Edwina naively assumed > in analyzing my syllogism, (070315-4). > > One evidence that the syllogistic format given in (070315-5) is valid is > provided by the sound physics example shown below (see my post dated > 07/03/2015 at 6:05 PM): > > 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. > > Off line, Edwina admitted that (070315-11) is valid but said that > (070315-11) "has nothing to do with syllogistic logic", which indicates to > me that her understanding of the complex nature of syllogism may be ____ (a > word too juvenile to be used here). > > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Dear Sung, Edwina, List, >> I think, the problem can (alternatively to the complicated syllogism >> logic) be explained with intension-extension and an inaccuracy inherent to >> the term "to be": To say "All signs are Peircean", does not mean, that this >> "are" is an activity by the signs, but by Peirce. Signs are passive objects >> in this case, and the activity is that of Peirces. So, to put the statement >> into the active form, does it go like this: "Peirce wrote about all signs"? >> No, because he didnt. He could not percieve all existing signs, the >> extension of the concept. He wrote about his concept of "all signs" (the- >> his- intension). Now, to turn it back into the original form, it would go >> like this: "The Peircean concept of all signs is Peircean", or: " "All >> signs"(Peirce) are Peircean" ("All signs" put into quotation marks requires >> the addition of (Peirce), to give the quote an adress and show the >> limitation). So, ""All signs"(Peirce) are Peircean" is much more limited >> than "All signs are Peircean". So it does not mean that all thoughts are >> Peircean, even not if Peirce wrote about thoughts too, because with >> "thoughts" there is the same intension-extension problem. >> Best, >> Helmut >> >> Supplement: I think, what I wrote is wrong, because: "Peircean" means "as >> claimed by Peirce", and if Peirce claims to have adressed all signs, then >> all signs are objectively Peircean, and not only Peircean in the >> Peircean-subjective way. But it is a funny problem, because the label >> "Peircean" does not stick to the signs, as one gets the impression by >> reading "all signs are Peircean". >> Best, Helmut >> >> >> >> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 04. Juli 2015 um 01:10 Uhr >> *Von:* "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> >> *An:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> >> *Betreff:* [biosemiotics:8747] Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - >> culture, projection >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 7:05 PM >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection >> To: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> >> >> Edwina, >> >> I have been noticing that you have the tendency to evade answering my >> 'difficult (?)' questions by ordering me to 'go and study Peirce' or now >> 'go and study syllogism'. As a permanent student, I have been doing and >> will continue to do both, even without your ordering. >> >> But let me ask you one simple question. Do you think one needs to study >> syllogism to know whether or not Syllogism (070315-11) is true ? Perhaps it >> is you now who has to go and study syllogism (and may be physics too) to be >> able to answer this question. >> >> Good luck. >> >> Sung >> >> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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 . >> > > > > -- > 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 .
