Jerry R., List: As Edwina has explained, the formulation in CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism, so it cannot be precisely what Peirce was referencing in the quoted passage from the Neglected Argument. We can, however, construct a syllogism that fits the bill by paying careful attention to the nature of the two propositions, A and C, and a third that is only implicit in CP 5.189--which I will call R, because it serves as the REASON why C follows from A as a matter of course. C is "the surprising fact," R is "the circumstances of its occurrence," and A is "the credible conjecture" that "furnishes a possible Explanation." A and R thus serve as premisses from which C follows "as necessarily consequent." We can use Peirce's bean example to illustrate such a syllogism.
Premiss A = These beans are from this bag. Premiss R = All of the beans from this bag are white. Conclusion C = These beans are white. This is deductively valid, a restatement of "if A then C because R." If we let X = these beans, Y = beans from this bag, and Z = white things, then the syllogism looks like this. A = X is Y. R = Y is Z. C = X is Z. Abduction, on the other hand, is starting with C and R, then inferring A as the (probable) explanation for C. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > ----- 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? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>
----------------------------- 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 .
