Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

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,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi everyone, There is multiplicity of ideas now flowing. My intention for this thread has been close to Peirce: “A certain amount of labor must be bestowed upon their literary polish; for my purpose requires that they should be read by persons who are not professional logicians. Indeed, for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Ben, Jon S, list, I did find the example CP 2.711 (the decapitated frog example as representing something like a syllogism in Barbara) a bit 'peculiar', Ben. But *that'*s neither here not there, and I did find intriguing. Today I'll merely try one last time to explain why I find the categorial

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jon S., Gary R., list, My diagram arises from a particular account by Peirce of deduction. Gary R. may have some other passages from Peirce in mind. Best, Ben On 5/1/2016 4:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: List: Ben U. and I seem to be on the same page here. He diagrammed deduction thus

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Thanks, Ben. Your responses are clear. My views differ somewhat, but here and now is not the place for a discussion as I have other pressing concerns. Cheers Jerry > On May 1, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Jerry C., list, > > Abduction starts from an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

3-8354 From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 1:55 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this mes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Ben, List: While I agree with the first part of this post, these sections raise questions. Questions interwoven. > On May 1, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > In abduction, the 'result' is the surprising observation in one of the > premisses. In deduction, it's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi, Gary R., list As far as I know, the main reason for the ordering of the premisses in the traditional categorical syllogistic forms is for consistency in comparisons among the forms: one always puts the major premiss first, the minor premiss second, and the conclusion third, in order that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

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,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

suggestion Paavola is > making is simply false. > > > Am I missing something? > > > --Jeff > > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > > -- &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

55 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Correction: In my last post I wrote "Your order here (result/rule/ergo case) was also recently suggested by Jon S as a possible 'inversion' of rule/case/result for abduction." But, now I recall that Jon S gave the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Ben, list, Thanks for your two recent posts in this thread. I've been reflecting on them--and the whole matter of abduction--but I'm not sure exactly where to take that reflection at the moment. Still, I believe that continuing the inquiry might prove quite well worth the effort. There are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Role of abduction in chemical ratiocinations / dicisigns

Ben, List: This is an aside to major thread. But it offer an innovative hypothesis on the meaning of “abduction” in conjunction with the meaning of ‘syllogisms’ in CSPs determinations of arguments. The relationship between the concept of “atom” and of “molecule” was rather fuzzy in CSP’s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Gary R., list, I got careless in my previous message. I said that "There is /F/, ergo anything is /F/" ("∃/F/∴∀/F/") would be abductive; however, in a stipulatedly non-empty universe, its conclusion entails its premiss, and so for my part I would rather call it inductive than abductive, at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Gary R., list, I got careless in my previous message. I said that "There is /F/, ergo anything is /F/" ("∃/F/∴∀/F/") would be abductive; however, in a stipulatedly non-empty universe, its conclusion entails its premiss, and so for my part I would rather call it inductive than abductive, at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: No doubt the point that you want to make is very clear in your own mind. Unfortunately, it remains quite obscure in your messages, at least as I read them. What exactly do you mean here by "that supposition" or "that rule of 'one two three'"? I already affirm Peirce's categories

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi Ben, Imagine Kepler having access to many A’s. That is, A’, A’’, A’’’, A, etc… These multiple hypotheses are all intended to be different in kind, with the intention of matching a representation for observation C. If you deduce the products of these different hypotheses and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jon, ha! Thank you for your honest and clear input. I submit that if you were to accept that supposition (that is, if you adopt that rule of "one two three" as true), you will find that it will lead you to acceptance of the truth. That is, if not this, which? Two? one, two, three...chance,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: You apparently find the absence of the letter B in CP 5.189 very surprising--thus demanding of an explanation--and suspect (i.e., hypothesize) that this was a quite deliberate omission by Peirce, such that there must be some deeply meaningful reason behind it. You even go so far

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi, Gary, I agree with most of what you say, only I don't see hypothesization of a rule in the beans example. On the other hand, Peirce is explicit about hypothesizing a new general (or rule) in the 1903 quote. [] The mind seeks to bring the facts, as modified by the new discovery,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jon, Yes, it is odd that I should cite something I haven’t read carefully. My explanation is that I recognized the general structure of his argument and am occupied by other matters. Moreover, I don’t believe you would accept the reference as the “burst-like” reason you seek to transform your

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: It seems odd to cite something that you admit not having read carefully. Here is the relevant passage. "The supposition that the antecedent A could come to the conclusion C is nothing but a suspicion, due to the incoherence of an expectation or the inconsistency of a belief.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jon, Uwe Wirth's essay relates to ours. I don't agree with everything he says (and have not read it carefully) but there are overlapping themes, such as an explicit account of B as "background-presupposition". http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/p-abdwir.htm Where do you suppose he came up

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: I am afraid that I remain at a loss. I see no answers to my questions in your response, and can find no thread that ties together your series of quotes from Peirce and others. Our ways of thinking--or at least our ways of expressing our thoughts--seem to be incompatible, so I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Thanks Jon, I appreciate your earnest questioning. If you don't mind, allow me to proceed with this discussion along my terms and not yours and ask: Why is it that Peirce's foremost contribution to philosophy is said to be his logic of discovery, viz., abduction, which is ampliative and not

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: I just came across a couple of additional data points that seem relevant. First, in CP 8.209 (1905): "... abduction is the inference of the truth of the minor premiss of a syllogism of which the major premiss is selected as known already to be true while the conclusion is found

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: I appreciate your efforts to clarify where you would like to take this discussion, but I must continue to confess that "I do not understand you," although I would certainly not characterize myself as "an angry man" in this context. :-) JR: "That is, the possibility for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Gary and list, I think you hit upon a critical point about genuine doubt in abduction. A genuine inquirer is noticing something that goes against what he genuinely believes, more correctly a genuine paradox, and is attempting a genuine re-ordering of his experience that would resolve the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Ben, list, You gave Peircean examples whereas the rule (or law) is *already known* either before or after the surprising fact. This seems all well and good to me for certain types of abductions, say, those involved in sleuthing, Sherlock Holmes style. But what of those inquiries in which the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? > > Edwina, > > > > Your statement, “I don't think introducing passion/emotion into the > l

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

- From: Jerry Rhee To: Jon Alan Schmidt Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Edwina, Your statement, “I don't think introducing passion/emotion into the logical format is relevant” is precisely

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Edwina, Your statement, “I don't think introducing passion/emotion into the logical format is relevant” is precisely the point. It’s typically the case that when the structure of the argument needs modifying, the reason given is that you can’t change it because…the past. Regardless, the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

, my assertion that it rained, based on my wet car, has no validity. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Jon Alan Schmidt Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? “The Spinozist state

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

philosophical theorizing about the principles > of logic at CP 5.189-94? > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > > -- > *From:* Benjam

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

ciate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com><mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 1:50 PM To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

My apologies, I need to make a correction to the last paragraph of my previous message; see below for the revised version. *Modus ponens* and "affirming the consequent" pertain only to propositional logic, not predicate logic. Jon S. On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: *Modus ponens* is a deductively valid form of argument in propositional logic. By contrast, as Edwina just pointed out, the form of (abductive) argument in CP 5.189 is deductively INvalid; it commits the fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." Valid *modus ponens* = If p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

chm...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 1:50 PM *To:* Edwina Taborsky *Cc:* Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

then q, q, Therefore p. That's called the Fallacy of affirming the consequent. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Benjamin Udell Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Ben, Thanks

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., list Emotions, or emotion-producing characteristics, can be predicates, as you say. The emotion of surprise mentioned in some of Peirce's schemata of abductive inference is not among the terms (subject, middle, predicate) under consideration there. They pertain instead to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi, Gary, Here the known rule is "All the beans from this bag are white." The hypothesis is "These beans are from this bag." From there one may deduce implications of these beans' being from this bag, tests of which would usefully corroborate the rule if the rule were in doubt, but would not,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry, I've got to agree with Jon on this one. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Jerry Rhee

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jon, Thanks for making your objections clear! I must to say...I'm pretty proud of myself for my explication above. *pat*pat* (myself on my back). :) Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > Thank you for laying

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry R., List: Thank you for laying this out so clearly. I still have to disagree, for several reasons. - A and C are not terms (subject/predicate/middle), they are propositions. - Peirce uses the rule/case/result formulations for syllogisms in predicate logic; does he ever do so

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

alidity of arguments--such as an argument to an > explanatory hypothesis. What obligations, if any, follow from the > supposition that is formed as the conclusion of this abductive argument > about the logical validity of abduction? > > > --Jeff > > > Jeffrey Downard > Asso

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

niversity (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 1:50 PM To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Edwina, List: The rearranged fo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

anschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 3:14 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? > > Edwina, Ben, List: > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

then form? > I prefer to see this as a propositional logic, ...which would be IF C > facts, THEN A rule. There are C facts, and therefore, A rule. > > This is hypothetical not deductive or inductive. > > Edwina > > > > - Original Message - > From: Benjamin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

this into a syllogistic format: > ALL beans from these bags are black. > Some [surprise!] beans are black > Therefore, some beans are from that bag. > > I've got three terms: > beans from these bags > some beans > black > > Format: PM/SM/SP > And it's invalid. Fallacies

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

. Edwina - Original Message - *From:* Benjamin Udell <mailto:baud...@gmail.com> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2016 2:17 PM *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Jerry R., I'd

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

; I prefer to see this as a propositional logic, ...which would be IF C > facts, THEN A rule. There are C facts, and therefore, A rule. > > This is hypothetical not deductive or inductive. > > Edwina > > > > - Original Message - > From: Benjamin Udell > To: pe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

'.. The question remains - what is the logical format for generating hypotheses? Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Benjamin Udell ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Edwina, Ben, List: I think that what Peirce meant by a "minor indirect probable syllogism" is one with the form that he presented as "hypothesis" in CP 2.623. *Rule.*--All the beans from this bag are white. *Result.*--These beans are white. .·.*Case.*--These beans are from this bag. For

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

: Monday, April 25, 2016 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Jerry R., I'd say that CP 5.189 is a "syllogism" in a broad sense admitted by Peirce, though the broad senses are not usual senses nowadays. Usually people mean a deductive categorical syllogism,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

etical not deductive or inductive. Edwina - Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Jon S., Jerry R., Edwina, Jim W., Ben N., list, "Syllogism&qu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi, It depends on what you take a syllogism to consist on. The modern interpretation leaves out the ancient Greek understanding of time. As you most probably know, CSP wa occupied with the problem of time as something constantly evolving all his life. (Thus it is of no use to stic into his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Jon S., Jerry R., Edwina, Jim W., Ben N., list, "Syllogism" has been used more broadly in the past. I checked the Century Dictionary's definition of syllogism

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Thanks Ben, Kirsti and list... So, would you say that CP 5.189 qualifies as syllogism, i.e., is it "hypothesis" based on what you know of what Peirce said on Aristotle? Why or why not? What's the predicate, subject and middle term? Thanks, Jerry R On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:19 PM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

CSP was thoroughly familiar with Aristotle, both his syllogisms and their context in those times. It may be good to remember that Aristotle's works, along all others, were translated into Latin by the time we call the new age. Translations always involve interpretation. Thus what has passed

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jon S., Jerry R., Edwina, Jim W., Ben N., list, "Syllogism" has been used more broadly in the past. I checked the Century Dictionary's definition of syllogism, of which Peirce was in charge. List of words beginning with "S" at PEP-UQÁM:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> ; Peirce List > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Sent:* Sunday, April 24, 2016 1:48 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? > > Ben, > > > > Tha

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Alan Schmidt Cc: Jerry LR Chandler ; Peirce List ; Edwina Taborsky Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Ben, Thank you for your thoughts and I like your modified formulation, even though it does not implement the logical structure

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Ben, Thank you for your thoughts and I like your modified formulation, even though it does not implement the logical structure. The Josephson X 2 addition also adds value. I believe also that C and A should be dynamic, that is, the surprising fact C that is observed is moving and the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Jerry C., List: I must confess, I do not understand what specific point you are trying to make with this response; please elaborate/clarify. To supplement my previous comments--surprise and suspicion are not part of the reasoning itself; i.e., not included within the syllogism. Surprise (at the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

to abandon one rule and generate another. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu&g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

> On Apr 24, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > then the syllogism looks like this. > > A = X is Y. > R = Y is Z. > C = X is Z. Really? Perhaps you mean that the conclusion you seek can be reached by this clear, distinct and logical expression of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

e credible conjecture, as premisses*. On account of this > Explanation, the inquirer is led to regard his conjecture, or hypothesis, > with favour.” > > ~A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God > - Original Message - >>>> *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

As you can see, this is an IF-THEN format. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Edwina and list, Thanks again for your patience

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "middle term C is undistributed", please? I think what I’m saying is closer to what the abduction would

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

this hypothesis >> Therefore, this event is explained by this hypothesis. >> >> However, I think that Peirce was using an IF-THEN propositional logic, >> where the hypothesis *is a proposition*. As a proposition, it is >> abductive, it is hypothetical rather than necessa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

e > explainable. > > The above is not a syllogism but a proposition. > > Edwina > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

- Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Thanks for your patience Edwina, I dislike political correctness, too. OK, if your objection

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

logism. [Fallacy of Four Terms] > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:25 PM > *Subjec

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

, suspicious. There's no such thing as a four-term syllogism. [Fallacy of Four Terms] Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Thanks Edwina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2016 7:12 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? > > Hi everyone, > > I'm trying to figure something out. I've convinced myself but am not > completely sure, so would like

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 7:12 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Hi everyone, I'm trying to figure something out. I've convinced myself but am not completely sure, so would like to work this out with the community. I haven't read Aristotle. Are there steadfast

[PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi everyone, I'm trying to figure something out. I've convinced myself but am not completely sure, so would like to work this out with the community. I haven't read Aristotle. Are there steadfast rules to syllogism one must never ever break or is there an essence? What is the intention of