Ben:
Hmm.
First, I agree with your description of the 5.189 as a 'modus ponens' and also,
the caution about a deductively invalid 'affirmation of the consequent'.
To repeat 5.189
The surprising fact, C, is observed;
But if A were true, C would be a matter of course,
Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true'.
1) But - your attempt to turn it into a regular syllogism...I'm not sure. The
point of the hypothesis is to create a new rule, a universal. Your new rule is
'all the beans from that bag are black'. But you have assumed it as necessary
rather than hypothetical. AND..
Your example has the middle term used only once. Has to be used twice. So- your
example doesn't work as a valid syllogism.
2) If I try to use the same terms, in the 5.189 format - it won't work either:
The surprising fact, black beans, is observed.
But if it's a rule that ALL beans from these bags are black, then, these beans
being black would be a matter of course.
Therefore, there is reason to suspect that it's a rule that all beans from
these bags are black.
Now, if I put 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 of the undistributed middle and undistributed
major.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Udell
To: 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 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, in Barbara and the rest.
To find the subject, middle, and predicate, one would have to rephrase 5.189,
whose form is akin to modus ponens and the deductively invalid affirmation of
the consequent. One has to put it at least somewhat into the form of a
categorical syllogism; the categorical syllogism is what has three terms,
subject, middle, and predicate, in its schemata.
So here's 5.189's form half-morphed into the black beans example.
These beans are (oddly) black.
But if these beans were from that bag, then it would be a matter of course
for them to be black (since all the beans from that bag are black).
Ergo (plausibly), these beans are from that bag.
The subject is these beans.
The middle is beans from that bag.
The predicate is black.
Best, Ben
On 4/25/2016 1:28 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
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, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
