Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "middle term C is *undistributed*", please?
I think what I’m saying is closer to what the abduction would look like right now compared to what it would look like at the future limit of inquiry. So, for now: The experience of surprise for B is observation C A might be C. Therefore, the experience of suspicion for B is A But at the limit, if everything were true, it would look like: B is no longer surprised by C Because A is C. Therefore, B knows A. As for whether I am allowed the power to equate B = (surprise or suspect), my *spirited* reasons are: “The inquiry begins with pondering these phenomena in all their aspects, in the search of some point of view whence the wonder shall be resolved. At length a conjecture arises that furnishes a possible *Explanation, by which I mean a syllogism exhibiting the surprising fact as necessarily consequent upon the circumstances of its occurrence together with the truth of the credible conjecture, as premisses*. On account of this Explanation, the inquirer is led to regard his conjecture, or hypothesis, with favour.” ~A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God and, “Namely, a sign is something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant sign determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence with something, C, its object, as that in which itself stand to C. It is from this definition, together with a definition of "formal", that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. [...]” ~* NEM IV* Best, Jerry Rhee :) On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > No. You still have the Fallacy of Four Terms. > > And you've added another syllogistic fallacy: the Fallacy of the > Undistributed Middle. Your 'middle term' of C is undistributed. > > To 'translate' your letters, you are now saying [I think]: > > B'The experience of surprise' is a FACT, C > The theory of A is a FACT, C. > Therefore A is B. [theory=experience of surprise] > > Again- fallacy of four terms; and undistributed middle. > > Notice what you are saying...You've merged 'FACTS' with 'the emotion of > surprise. And added the emotion of suspicion. But what the Peircean > abductive logic is attempting to do, is to show that new *hypotheses* > can explain *facts*. > > The only way to set up a syllogism would be *deductive rather than > abductive*: > > X-facts are explained by this hypothesis > This event is an x-fact > Therefore, this event is explained by this hypothesis. > > you could set it up with the minor premise first: > > This event is an x-fact > x-facts are explained by this hypothesis > Therefore, this event is explained by this hypothesis. > > Or > This event is a surprise > Surprises are explained by this hypothesis > Therefore, this event is explained by this hypothesis. > > However, I think that Peirce was using an IF-THEN propositional logic, > where the hypothesis *is a proposition*. As a proposition, it is > abductive, it is hypothetical rather than necessary or deductive. > > I see these facts. IF X- hypothesis is valid, THEN, these facts are > explainable. > > The above is not a syllogism but a proposition. > > Edwina > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:54 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? > > Thanks for your patience Edwina, > > I dislike political correctness, too. > > OK, if your objection is that it lacks a middle term, then C is the middle > term because starting with the premise, B = surprise or suspect, > > B (surprise) is C > A is C > Therefore, B (suspicious) is A > > Will this do other than whether you agree on B = surprise or suspect? > > Thanks again, > Jerry R > > > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> No, it is not a syllogism. It lacks a middle term. >> >> Again, to use the basic syllogistic example: >> >> All men are wise >> Socrates is a man >> Therefore, Socrates is wise. >> >> Three terms: Socrates; man; wise. >> Note that the middle term of 'man' appears in both the major and minor >> premises. Your IF-THEN proposition does not have a middle term. >> >> Your attempt to say that *he is transformed by the argument* [Note: I >> dislike political correctness; the pronoun 'he' is gender neutral'] doesn't >> introduce a third term. >> >> And >> >> Your example has no middle term. Furthermore, it has FOUR terms: >> A, C, surprise, suspicious. >> There's no such thing as a four-term syllogism. [Fallacy of Four Terms] >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:25 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? >> >> Thanks Edwina, >> >> Is that the only objection? >> >> So, the thing I think Peirce intended is that (surprise, suspect) is the >> third term, because a person (B) is surprised or suspicious. That person >> is the same, that is, one person but she is transformed during the argument. >> >> So, >> >> Surprise is C >> A is C >> Therefore, Suspicious is A >> >> Does that work? >> >> Thanks, >> Jerry R >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> No, it is not a syllogism. A syllogism has THREE terms. Your example has >>> two. A syllogism is in the format of >>> Major Premise >>> Minor Premise >>> Conclusion >>> >>> All M is P >>> S is M >>> Therefore S is P >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> Your example is in the form of Propositional Logic, or IF-THEN logic. >>> >>> If p then q >>> p >>> Therefore q >>> >>> Or, If A then C >>> A >>> Therefore C >>> This is called the *modus ponens*. >>> >>> So, it would be >>> IF A is true, then C is a matter of course >>> [I surmise that] A is true >>> Therefore, C is a matter of course. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2016 7:12 PM >>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'm trying to figure something out. I've convinced myself but am not >>> completely sure, so would like to work this out with the community. >>> >>> I haven't read Aristotle. Are there steadfast rules to syllogism one >>> must never ever break or is there an essence? What is the intention of >>> syllogism? >>> >>> Would you say the following is a syllogism? Why or why not? >>> >>> The surprising fact, C, is observed. >>> But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. >>> Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. >>> >>> Thanks for any input, >>> Jerry Rhee >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 .
