Jerry R., List: Ben U., Edwina, and I have already explained in various ways--what we find in CP 5.189 is NOT *modus ponens*, it is "affirming the consequent," which is deductively invalid; and it is NOT a syllogism in the strict technical sense, because it expresses propositional logic, not predicate logic. If we need a name for it, I think that we should simply call it what Peirce himself did in the text itself--the "form of inference" for abduction.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > So, since there can be no clear correspondence between CP 5.189 and modus > ponens, which equivalence is most consistent or are they all different > enough to say that CP 5.189 is not modus ponens, either? > > > > If not modus ponens, and not syllogism, then what is it? Should we > invent a new word for it or apply a very general term like “schema”, which > is so general so as to not be terribly informative? >
----------------------------- 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 .
