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:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120209081844/http://www.pep.uqam.ca/listsofwords.pep?l=S
Century Dictionary page 6123:
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=07&page=807&query=syllogism
The discussion of sense 1 is long, and includes not only modus ponens
but also induction and hypothesis as kinds of syllogism - calling
induction "major indirect probable syllogism" and hypothesis "minor
indirect probable syllogism". However, in later years, Peirce discusses
hypothesis (abductive inference) in terms of plausibility rather than
probability, and even his sense of "probable" in "major probable
syllogism" really refers to what he later calls verisimilitude, the
likeness of the conclusion to the premisses.
Sense 2 of "syllogism" in the Century Dictionary says, "Deductive or
explicatory reasoning as opposed to induction and hypothesis: a use of
the term which has been common since Aristotle."
"Statistical syllogism" is discussed in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_syllogism
Best, Ben
On 4/24/2016 2:42 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Jerry R., List:
I thought that Edwina and I had made it clear by now that CP 5.189 is
NOT a syllogism, at least not in the strict technical sense. I thus
take Ben to be using the term colloquially. In fact, dictionary.com
<http://dictionary.com> gives three definitions for "syllogism":
1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two
premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major
term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other
(minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject
of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term)
that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is
C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”
2. deductive reasoning.
3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.
I suppose that the third one MIGHT be applicable to CP 5.189, but in
light of Peirce's well-known concern about the ethics of terminology,
I think that we should steer clear of it in this context. Again,
surprise/suspect are not terms in the syllogism itself at all; they
are what initiates the inquiry (surprise at C) and what serves as its
outcome (suspicion that A explains C) in the one who is doing the
reasoning.
As for your stated desire "to link CP 5.189 with Peirce’s esoteric
writing in A Neglected Argument"--as I indicated, the syllogism that
he references in the latter is the one that I outlined previously,
where A and R are the premisses and C is the (deductive) conclusion
that follows from them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://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 .
