Hi Gary, Helmut, list;
Helmut’s example reminded me of black swans. That is, Deduction: Rule: All men die Case: Jesus was a man Result: Jesus has died, necessarily (necessary conclusion) The swan example: Rule: All swans are white Case: Jimmy is a swan Result: Jimmy is white. Except, all swans are not white. Some are black. But people thought swans were only white long ago...or so they say. Also, given our awareness of genetics, there was always the possibility that swans could have been black...blue, even. Similarly, Jesus may or may not be a man exclusively. He also may or may not have died since he could have been born again. So, is the deductive swan example necessary reasoning? Is it correct? Is the intention of deductive reasoning and syllogisms in general to promote correct reasoning or necessary reasoning? Thanks for any comments! Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, list, > in my understanding, the conclusion is always the last of the three lines, > and the three lines are written underneath each other according to time, in > the sense of what comes first to mind, what then and what then, so for me > it would go like this: > > Deduction: > Rule: All men die > Case: Jesus was a man > Result: Jesus has died, necessarily (necessary conclusion) > > Induction: > Case: Jesus is a man > Result: Jesus has died > Rule: All men die (probably, as one more example is added to all the > previous examples of men having died- probable conclusion) > > Abduction: > Result: Jesus has died > Rule: All men die > Case: Jesus was a man (possibly- possible conclusion). > > What I find interesting, is, that between deduction, induction and > abduction, there are inversions in the sequence of rule-case-result: > Deduction: Rule-case-result > Induction: Case-result-rule > Abduction: Result-rule-case. > > This is like in music, like with a trichord and its inversions. You can do > the same with the beans-in-a-bag-example, though originally, in Peirces > version, it is not written in this way that shows the inversions. > > I hope i did not mess everything up, like the nesses and the middle term > and the vectors. Sorry if i did. Perhaps I just chose a different way of > arranging things- good or bad, i dont know. > Best, > Helmut > > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 27. April 2016 um 23:45 Uhr > *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> > *An:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] Three inference patterns > List, > > Not to be taken too seriously--as this was just a bit of play which > occupied me for an hour or so today-- but based on the bean example, here's > how I see the three inference patterns and their paths (vectors) through > the 3 categories. > > *Inference patterns and categoriality:* > 1ns, Result (for deduction only) == 'Character' (for abduction/induction) > |> 3ns, Rule > 2ns, Case > > Middle term: That which is the middle term in deduction is put in *bold *in > all 3 patterns > Vectorial order: In each case start at * and conclude at *** > > *Deduction* (vector of involution): > ***3rd, 1ns: *conclusion*-It is NECESSARY that Jesus die. > |> *1st, 3ns: All *men* die, > **2nd, 2ns: Jesus is a *man*; > > *Abduction* (vector of representation): > **2nd, 1ns: Jesus died; > |> *1st, 3ns: I make the supposition that all *men* die, > ***3rd, 2ns: *conclusion*-It is POSSIBLE that Jesus was but a *man*. > > *Induction* (vector of determination): > **2nd, 1ns: Jesus dies; > |> ***3rd, 3ns: *conclusion*-It is PROBABLE that all *men* die. > *1st, 2ns: Jesus is a *man, * > > Well, again, one doesn't want to make too much of this except to note that > both deduction and abduction begin with a rule (in abduction, a mere > 'supposition'), while induction concludes with a rule (which has some > probability). > > Best, > > Gary R > > ----------------------------- 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
