Edwina, you're right. My first one is exposed if I write, If he's a logician he's a man If he's a logician he's mean Therefore some who are mean are men
There might be no logicians, and maybe the only who are mean are dogs. But Sung assumed the existence of logicians. I'll look more closely at this and the others later today. Matt > On Jul 6, 2014, at 8:07 AM, "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, Sung and Matt - your attempt to validate Sung's syllogism sets up yet > another fallacy: the Existential Fallacy. Sung chose the first one of the > three you suggested, Matt - as a 'best fit' for what he was trying to assert. > > But, it's just as invalid as his previous illicit major, for it moves into > the Existential Fallacy, where 'if both premises are universal then the > conclusion must also be universal'. You, Matt, changed the conclusion to > 'some', which is a non-universal. Can't be done - and reduces Sung's claim to > irrelevance. After all, he is trying to claim that Peircean signs can unify > mathematics and to reduce that to 'some Peircean signs'....renders the claim > trivial. [Your other two, Matt, are also formally invalid.] > > Sung- the quantifier 'All' is normal in a syllogism as differentiated from > 'some'. It shows that a term is distributed as differentiated from > undistributed (some). > > Again, check out a brief outline on syllogistic logic. > > Furthermore, just because you line up two sets of coloured blocks side by > side, and the two sets each share a colour, doesn't mean that the remaining > colours are related. > > Edwina > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> > To: "Matt Faunce" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 5:38 AM > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Burgin's Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs. > > >> Matt, >> >> Thank you for your attempt to clarify what I mean by my proposed >> "mathematics-semiotics (MS)" syllogism. >> >> Of the three syllogisms you constructed, the first one may fit the MS >> syllogism best, probably because of the existential quantifier "some" >> appearing in the conclusion. >> >> Interestingly, in the original MS syllogism that I constructed, there is >> no quantifier at all. However, in Edwina's (mis- ?) interpretation of the >> MS syllogism, she introduced the universal quantifier, "all". I wonder if >> this is at the root of the controversy between her and me. (Although I >> have taken no formal course on logic, my thinking, I hope, is logical >> most, if not all, of the time.) >> >> With all the best. >> >> Sung >> >> >>>>> Please, Sung - try to read a basic course in logic. >>> >>> Hmmmâ?¦ >>> >>> Sung's syllogism: >>> >>>>>> Burgin's fundamental triad can unify mathematics. [5, 6] >>>>>> (070514-5) >>>>>> >>>>>> Burign's fundamental triad is a Peircean sign. [Figure 3] >>>>>> (070514-6) >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore Peircean sign (or semiotics) can unify >>>>>> (070514-7) >>>>>> mathematics. (Prediction}. >>> >>> Sung must have meant one of the 3 following valid syllogisms: >>> >>> >>> 1. >>> >>> Major premise: A â?"> B >>> Minor premise: A â?"> C >>> Conclusion: some C â?"> B >>> >>> All logicians are men >>> All logicians are mean >>> Therefore some who are mean are men >>> >>> >>> OR 2. >>> >>> Major premise: A â?"> B >>> Minor premise: A = C >>> Conclusion: C â?"> B >>> >>> All logicians are men >>> All logicians are mean, and everyone mean is a logician >>> Therefore all who are mean are men. >>> >>> >>> OR 3. >>> >>> Major premise: A = B >>> Minor premise: A = C >>> Conclusion: C = B >>> >>> All logicians are men and all men are logicians >>> All logicians are mean and anything mean is a logician >>> Therefore all who are mean are men and all men are mean >>> >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2014, at 6:46 PM, "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Edwina wrote: >>>> >>>> ". . . your syllogism is both formally false and (p70514-1) >>>> logically invalid...the Fallacy of the Illicit >>>> Major." >>>> >>>> The logic behind my syllogism is as follows: >>>> >>>> Major premise: A = B >>>> >>>> Minor premise: A = C >>>> >>>> Conclusion: C = B >>>> >>>> >>>> where A = Burign's fundamental triad, B = the unification of >>>> mathematics; >>>> and C = the Peircean triad. >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you still think that my syllogism commits the Fallacy of the Illicit >>>> Major ? >>>> >>>> With all the best. >>>> >>>> Sung >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please, Sung - try to read a basic course in logic. Your endless >>>>> attempts >>>>> to >>>>> link things with each other, whether it's Saussure with Peirce, or Bohr >>>>> with >>>>> Bohm or whatever - run into theoretical problems, empirical problems >>>>> and >>>>> logical problems. >>>>> >>>>> Last time, your syllogism was invalid because of the Fallacy of Four >>>>> terms. >>>>> This time, your syllogism is both formally false and logically >>>>> invalid...the >>>>> Fallacy of the Illicit Major. >>>>> >>>>> As a comparison with your format, think about this comparable example. >>>>> >>>>> All logicians are men >>>>> All logicians are mean >>>>> Therefore all men are mean. >>>>> >>>>> Get it? Your syllogism makes the same error. Your terms of >>>>> 'mathematics' >>>>> and 'Peircean sign' are undistributed in the premises and therefore, >>>>> can't >>>>> be distributed in the conclusion - but you have done just that. >>>>> >>>>> Edwina >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2014 5:33 PM >>>>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Burgin's Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> (Undistorted figures are attached.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephen R on the Peirce list cited Peirce as saying: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to (070514-1) >>>>>> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to >>>>>> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to >>>>>> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of >>>>>> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, >>>>>> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in >>>>>> whatever other department there may be, shall appear >>>>>> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward >>>>>> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every >>>>>> subject." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At least one of the potential "simple concepts" that Peirce is >>>>>> referring >>>>>> to above may turn out to be his concept of "irreducible triadicity" >>>>>> embedded in the following quote that Jon recently posted and further >>>>>> explained in Figure 1 and (070514-4): >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. >>>>>> (070514-2) >>>>>> A definition of a sign will be given which no more >>>>>> refers to human thought than does the definition of >>>>>> a line as the place which a particle occupies, part >>>>>> by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is >>>>>> something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant >>>>>> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort >>>>>> of correspondence with something, C, its object, as >>>>>> that in which itself stands to C. It is from this >>>>>> definition, together with a definition of "formal", >>>>>> that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic. >>>>>> I also make a historical review of all the definitions >>>>>> and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my >>>>>> definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological >>>>>> conception of logic has virtually been quite generally >>>>>> held, though not generally recognized." (NEM 4, 20-21). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> a b >>>>>> C --------> A --------> B >>>>>> | ^ >>>>>> | | >>>>>> |_______________________________| >>>>>> c >>>>>> >>>>>> Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the principle of >>>>>> irreducible >>>>>> triadicity as applied to the definition of a sign. A = sign; B = >>>>>> interpretant; and C = object. a = the sign-object relation (which >>>>>> can >>>>>> be >>>>>> iconic, indexical or symbolic); b = the sign-interpretant relation >>>>>> (which >>>>>> can be rheme, dicisign or argument); c = the object-interpretant >>>>>> relation >>>>>> (which is lacking in Peircean semiotics but may be provided by >>>>>> microsemiotics [1] or biosemiotics (e.g., [2, 3, 4]). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "A is determined by C and determines B in such away (070514-3) >>>>>> that C is indirectly determined by B." >>>>>> >>>>>> The purpose of this email is to suggest the possible connection >>>>>> between >>>>>> the Peircean sign and Burgin's fundamental triad shown in Figure 2 >>>>>> that >>>>>> is >>>>>> postulated by Burgin to underlie all mathematical constructions [5, >>>>>> 6]. >>>>>> >>>>>> f >>>>>> X -------------- > I >>>>>> >>>>>> Figure 2. The "fundamental triads" (also called "named sets") of >>>>>> Burgin >>>>>> [5, attached, 6]. X = set of objects called "support"; I = set of >>>>>> objects >>>>>> called "names", and f = "naming relation". >>>>>> >>>>>> The key to connecting Burign's triad and Peircean sign is to >>>>>> re-express >>>>>> the 2-node network in Figure 2 in the form of the 3-node network shown >>>>>> in >>>>>> Figure 3 which is expressed in words in (070514-4). >>>>>> >>>>>> a b >>>>>> X -------- > f --------> I >>>>>> | ^ >>>>>> | | >>>>>> |_______________________________| >>>>>> c >>>>>> Figure 3. Burign's fundamental triad, Figure 2, re-expressed as an >>>>>> irreducible triad of Peirce, Figure 1. a = causality (?); b = >>>>>> convention >>>>>> (?); c = symbol grounding (?). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "X determines f which in turn determines I in such (070514-4) >>>>>> a way that I is constrained by or correlated with X." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If the Burgin-Peirce connection depicted in Figure 3 turns out to be >>>>>> true, >>>>>> the following syllogism would result: >>>>>> >>>>>> Burgin's fundamental triad can unify mathematics. [5, 6] >>>>>> (070514-5) >>>>>> >>>>>> Burign's fundamental triad is a Peircean sign. [Figure 3] >>>>>> (070514-6) >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore Peircean sign (or semiotics) can unify >>>>>> (070514-7) >>>>>> mathematics. (Prediction}. >>>>>> >>>>>> With all the best. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sung >>>>>> __________________________________________________ >>>>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>>>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>>>>> Rutgers University >>>>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>>>>> 732-445-4701 >>>>>> >>>>>> www.conformon.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>> 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 . > >
----------------------------- 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 .
