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 on into
modern logic & philosophy as 'Aristotelian syllogism' I find gravely
misunderstood. - Basics of Western math had changed, via Arab influence.
The birth of albegra (al-jabr) had taken place.
Ben is putting the discussion into right tracts in introducing CSP's
entries on the topic.
Kirsti
Benjamin Udell kirjoitti 25.4.2016 19:16:
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
[4]
Century Dictionary page 6123:
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=07&page=807&query=syllogism
[5]
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 [6]
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 [1] gives three definitions for "syllogism":
* 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.”
* deductive reasoning.
* 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 [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
Links:
------
[1] http://dictionary.com
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://web.archive.org/web/20120209081844/http://www.pep.uqam.ca/listsofwords.pep?l=S
[5]
http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=07&page=807&query=syllogism
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_syllogism
-----------------------------
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 .
