Jerry R., List: I thought that Edwina and I had made it clear by now that CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism, at least not in the strict technical sense. I thus take Ben to be using the term colloquially. In fact, dictionary.com gives three definitions for "syllogism":
1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.” 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. I suppose that the third one MIGHT be applicable to CP 5.189, but in light of Peirce's well-known concern about the ethics of terminology, I think that we should steer clear of it in this context. Again, surprise/suspect are not terms in the syllogism itself at all; they are what initiates the inquiry (surprise at C) and what serves as its outcome (suspicion that A explains C) in the one who is doing the reasoning. As for your stated desire "to link CP 5.189 with Peirce’s esoteric writing in A Neglected Argument"--as I indicated, the syllogism that he references in the latter is the one that I outlined previously, where A and R are the premisses and C is the (deductive) conclusion that follows from them. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
