Jerry - I don't think introducing passion/emotion into the logical format is relevant.
With regard to the modus ponens - in its valid and invalid formats.. If p, then q p Therefore q. That is valid. BUT, an invalid format would be: If p, then q q Therefore p. The classical example of such an invalid format, called 'affirming the consequent' is: If it rains, my car will be wet. My car is wet. Therefore, it rained. The above is invalid, the conclusion has no rational validity. My car may indeed be wet, but that might be due to my having left the lawn sprinkler on right beside it. So, my assertion that it rained, based on my wet car, has no validity. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Jerry Rhee To: Jon Alan Schmidt Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? “The Spinozist state, then, transforms passion into the servant of reason by the rational understanding of man’s passionate nature. Philosophy is the highest power for all men, even though its teaching must be presented in a form suited for the public mind.” ~ Strauss and Cropsey Is CP 5.189, then, the perfect form by which to communicate to the public mind the means by which to transform passion into the servant of reason by the rational understanding of man’s passionate nature? Why even talk about surprise and suspect if instead we can have beans and bags…or p’s and q’s? ______ Jon, I may have read wrongly but I recall Ben saying that it is a syllogism and Edwina saying that it is modus ponens. Besides, affirming the consequent is fine if two things are the same, isn't it? That is, your conjecture may be different from my conjecture. You might have the correct conjecture and I can have the wrong conjecture. But so long as I don't know that you have the right conjecture, I will accuse you of affirming the consequent. What decides except evidence that is in the future, or at the very least, a clear description of the relevance relation? Best, Jerry R On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
