Gary R., List: GR: "I am keenly interested in the categoriality of the different paths the three inference patterns take. I am not alone in associating 'rule' with 3ns and 'case' with 2ns. Indeed, it seems to me that *in a strong sense* these two terms, 'rule' and 'case' are, shall we say, categorially *descriptive*, and this is not so for 'result' which is associated with 1ns."
What is the basis for these category assignments? In CP 2.623, the explanatory hypothesis--which I would expect to be associated with Firstness--is the Case, not the Result; and the surprising fact--which I would expect to be associated with Secondness--is the Result, not the Case. Perhaps this is why Jon A. suggested "fact" as an alternative term for "result." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
