Edwina, your argument is with Peirce. It's Peirce who called induction
"major indirect probable syllogism" and hypothesis "minor indirect
probable syllogism." I'm just noting what's on the historical record
and, for my part, I tend to trust his scholarship. I agree that
syllogism in your sense is the usual one nowadays.
I think that the point that is tripping Jerry R. up is that CP 5.189, as
well as modus ponens and affirming the consequent, are schemata of
_/propositional/_ logic, while the jugglings of Barbara are schemata of
/term/ logic, and it is terms that are subject, middle, or predicate.
Best, Ben
On 4/25/2016 2:32 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
This means that 5.189 is NOT a syllogism.
IF we follow 'sense 2' of the meaning of syllogism, then it is a
three-term logical format, operative in the *deductive* mode only. Not
the inductive, not the abductive.
Certainly, the argument of 'what is a syllogism' has been argued for
centuries, and yes, you can modify this basic format to include the
IF-THEN argument [modus ponens] as, eg, the major premise - but, you
must still use the syllogistic form of: Major Premise/Minor
Premise/Conclusion.
The problem I have with calling 5.189 a syllogism, is that it is not
deductive. And, of course, there are only two terms, A and C. And, in
the two premises [major and minor] there is no universal, for the
universal rule is 'being developed' within the second premise as a
hypothetical!
It is not a disjunctive syllogism since there is no 'either-negative
or' format. But is it a hypothetical syllogism - which uses
the if-then form? I prefer to see this as a propositional logic,
...which would be IF C facts, THEN A rule. There are C facts, and
therefore, A rule.
This is hypothetical not deductive or inductive.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Udell
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?
Jon S., Jerry R., Edwina, Jim W., Ben N., list,
"Syllogism" has been used more broadly in the past. I checked the
Century Dictionary's definition of syllogism, of which Peirce was
in charge.
List of words beginning with "S" at PEP-UQÁM:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120209081844/http://www.pep.uqam.ca/listsofwords.pep?l=S
Century Dictionary page 6123:
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=07&page=807&query=syllogism
The discussion of sense 1 is long, and includes not only modus
ponens but also induction and hypothesis as kinds of syllogism -
calling induction "major indirect probable syllogism" and
hypothesis "minor indirect probable syllogism". However, in later
years, Peirce discusses hypothesis (abductive inference) in terms
of plausibility rather than probability, and even his sense of
"probable" in "major probable syllogism" really refers to what he
later calls verisimilitude, the likeness of the conclusion to the
premisses.
Sense 2 of "syllogism" in the Century Dictionary says, "Deductive
or explicatory reasoning as opposed to induction and hypothesis: a
use of the term which has been common since Aristotle."
"Statistical syllogism" is discussed in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_syllogism
Best, Ben
On 4/24/2016 2:42 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
-----------------------------
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 .
