Edwina, Ben, List: I think that what Peirce meant by a "minor indirect probable syllogism" is one with the form that he presented as "hypothesis" in CP 2.623.
*Rule.*--All the beans from this bag are white. *Result.*--These beans are white. .ยท.*Case.*--These beans are from this bag. For translation to CP 5.189, "Result" is the surprising fact, C; "Case" is the proposed explanation, A; and "Rule" is the reason why C would be a matter of course if A is true. Obviously this is not a valid deductive syllogism; the whole point is that it involves a different type of inference (abductive). However, we can rearrange it into a valid deductive syllogism by making "Rule" and "Case" the premisses, and "Result" the conclusion; thus the subject is "these beans," the predicate is "white," and the middle term is "beans from this bag." This is what I have suggested that Peirce actually had in mind when, in "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," he referred to "a syllogism exhibiting the surprising fact [Result] as necessarily consequent upon the circumstances of its occurrence [Rule] together with the truth of the credible conjecture [Case], as premisses." 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 [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 .
