This means that 5.189 is NOT a syllogism. IF we follow 'sense 2' of the meaning of syllogism, then it is a three-term logical format, operative in the deductive mode only. Not the inductive, not the abductive.
Certainly, the argument of 'what is a syllogism' has been argued for centuries, and yes, you can modify this basic format to include the IF-THEN argument [modus ponens] as, eg, the major premise - but, you must still use the syllogistic form of: Major Premise/Minor Premise/Conclusion. The problem I have with calling 5.189 a syllogism, is that it is not deductive. And, of course, there are only two terms, A and C. And, in the two premises [major and minor] there is no universal, for the universal rule is 'being developed' within the second premise as a hypothetical! It is not a disjunctive syllogism since there is no 'either-negative or' format. But is it a hypothetical syllogism - which uses the if-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 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" 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 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 - 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
