Jerry R., List:

Thank you for laying this out so clearly.  I still have to disagree, for
several reasons.

   - A and C are not terms (subject/predicate/middle), they are
   propositions.
   - Peirce uses the rule/case/result formulations for syllogisms in
   predicate logic; does he ever do so for propositional logic?
   - "A is C" is not logically equivalent to "if A then C"; likewise for
   the other "translations."
   - Surprise and suspicion are not terms of the argument itself, they are
   effects on a person--which is what seems to interest you about them.
   - Surprise and suspicion are not identical terms, which they would have
   to be in order to get (deductively) from "C is A" and "A is suspicious" to
   "C is surprising."

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote:

> My argument and accounts are the following:
>
>
>
> CP 5.189 is a syllogism, that is, they share identity because:
>
>
>
> Given B = surprise or suspect:
>
>
>
> Conversion to deductive form of categorical syllogism (which requires
> three terms and distributed constraints):
>
>
>
> *Abductive form*
>
> The surprising fact, C, is observed;
> Result
>
> But if A were true, C would be a matter of course,                Rule
>
> Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true'.                   Case
>
>
>
> *Deductive form*
>
> But if A were true, C would be a matter of course,                 Rule
>
> Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true'.                    Case
>
> The surprising fact, C, is observed;
> Result
>
>
>
> *Substitution gives:*
>
>
>
> A is C                                                      Rule
>
> B is A                                                      Case
>
> B is C                                                      Result
>
>
>
> Subject                      B
>
> Predicate                  C
>
> Middle                      A
>
>
>
> Major premise: A is C           Rule    if A were true, C  matter of
> course
>
> Minor premise: B is A          Case     Hence, there is reason to suspect
> that A is true.
>
> Conclusion: B is C                Result     The surprising fact, C, is
> observed;
>
> *Inversion gives:*
>
>
>
> C is A     Rule            A is C                            or
> *C is A*
>
> A is B     Case           Suspicious is A            or                   *A
> is suspicious*
>
> C is B     Result        Surprising is C              or
> *C is surprising*
>
>
>
> Subject:                    C
>
> Predicate                  B
>
> Middle                      A
>
>
>
> Major premise: B is A         Case     Hence, there is reason to suspect
> that A is true'. Minor premise: A is C         Rule      But if A were
> true, C a matter of course.  Conclusion:        C is B        Result   The
> surprising fact, C, is observed;
>
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to