Ben, you wrote: Many of Peirce's examples of abductive inference involve merely the extension of a known rule to cover a surprising case. The beans example is classic, from 1878 in "Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis".
All the beans from this bag are white. These beans are white. ∴ these beans are from this bag.' Again, I don't think that it's a matter of "merely the extension of a known rule," but rather of the *supposition* that there *is* a rule (i.e., my hypothesis should it be shown to be true through experimental testing, say). That rule was *not* earlier known, but now--if my hypothesis is valid--it is known. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, your argument is with Peirce. It's Peirce who called induction > "major indirect probable syllogism" and hypothesis "minor indirect probable > syllogism." I'm just noting what's on the historical record and, for my > part, I tend to trust his scholarship. I agree that syllogism in your sense > is the usual one nowadays. > > I think that the point that is tripping Jerry R. up is that CP 5.189, as > well as modus ponens and affirming the consequent, are schemata of _ > *propositional*_ logic, while the jugglings of Barbara are schemata of > *term* logic, and it is terms that are subject, middle, or predicate. > > Best, Ben > > On 4/25/2016 2:32 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > 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> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_syllogism > > Best, Ben > > On 4/24/2016 2:42 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
