Edwina and list,
Thanks again for your patience but I didn’t know what a “middle term” was, either. I think my head just doesn’t work well with these types of presentations and I get frustrated. I was also trying to figure out whether a “rearranged syllogism” is allowed to be called a "syllogism", that is, how flexible usage of the technical term is. Here’s an improved presentation: Since Peirce's abduction is Minor/Major/Conclusion (Result/Rule/Case); rearranging to standard deductive form gives: *Abduction* All C is surprised B Minor premise *Result* All A is C, as matter of course. Major premise *Rule* .'. All suspicious B is A Conclusion *Case* *Rearranged to deduction* All A is C as matter of course. Major premise *Rule* All suspicious B is A Minor premise *Case* .'. All C is surprised B Conclusion *Result* The *middle term is A* and not C in deductive form because it is only present in premises. The major term is B because it is the predicate of the conclusion. The minor term is C because it is the subject of the conclusion. Does it make sense to define major/minor/middle for abductive form? Does it make sense to define for logical form holding such modified terms? *At future limit:* All A is C, as matter of course. Major premise *Rule* All knowing B is A Minor premise *Case* .'. All C is no longer surprised B Conclusion *Result* *Above, rearranged in reverse order to result/case/rule, is close to your:* *This event is a surprise * *Surprises are explained by this hypothesis* *Therefore, this event is explained by this hypothesis.* I hope I presented myself clearly and thanks again for your help, Jerry R On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
