Jerry, I've got to agree with Jon on this one.
Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
