Jon, Thanks for making your objections clear!
I must to say...I'm pretty proud of myself for my explication above. *pat*pat* (myself on my back). :) Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
