Jerry R., List: The surprising fact, C, is observed;
But if A were true, C would be a matter of course [because B]; Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. This is propositional logic, so as you anticipated, we have to convert it into predicate logic--a syllogism in the strict, deductive sense--in order to assign the various terms as you have requested. By doing so, we construct the very syllogism that Peirce invoked in "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God" (EP 2.441). With S=subject (these beans), P=predicate (white), and M=middle (beans from this bag) ... A = credible conjecture = Case = minor premiss = S is M. B = circumstances of occurrence = Rule = major premiss = M is P. C = surprising fact = Result = conclusion = S is P. I do not believe that any of this is controversial, nor (it seems) is assigning B to Thirdness; someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong about this. :-) What is still on the table is whether A is Firstness (Jon S.) or Secondness (Gary R.), and thus whether C is Secondness (Jon S.) or Firstness (Gary R.). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ben, Jon, Gary, list members: > > > > If you won’t mind modifying yours above to state clearly, in the form of > *Paavola*, what you consider to be Firstness/Secondness/Thirdness, > Result/Rule/Case, Major/Minor/Conclusion, subject/predicate/middle (so > we can see them side-by-side in order to decide on equivalence). If > request does not make sense because the number of terms is ambiguous or > doesn't conform to the structure, please state that, too, please. > Alternatively, > simply classify according to beans and bags and I will do the > transformation into CP 5.189 with explication. The goal is simply to > organize things clearly in one place. > > > > I will assume that you have made the necessary conversion into the > deductive form so as to assign major/minor/conclusion and > subject/middle/predicate consistently. I am not including vector of > determination or order of analysis, as that appears to be different in kind > from First/Second/Third. Plus, I am not sure how that fits with there > being a logic of icons, index and symbols. >
----------------------------- 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 .
