Jerry, we've been through this many times. The pragmatic maxim
recommends drawing a (pragmatically explicitative) consequent from an
antecedent. The CP 5.189 form of abductive inference portrays finding a
(naturally simple) antecedent ("A") for a consequent ("C"), going, thus,
in the _/reverse/_ direction, hence Peirce for some time called it
"retroduction."
The pragmatic maxim says to look for conceivable practical implications.
Abductive inference involves looking for conceivable implicants,
"impliers" if you will, that one could also call practical I guess,
anyway for example ones that may conflict with each other as
explanations, e.g., ideas of various mechanisms, insofar as the ideas
are new to the data and are not already presented by the data.
Conceivable practical antecedents, not conceivable practical
consequents. Then one looks to deduce, compute, etc., conceivable
practical consequents _/of/_ the abduced conceivable practical
antecedent, towards possible tests of that antecedent (the hypothetical
explanation).
Peirce recognized various senses of the word "syllogism." In a broader
sense that he discussed, an abductive inference is a kind of syllogism.
But usually by the unmodified term "syllogism" people have long meant a
deductive categorical syllogism: major premiss, minor premiss, conclusion.
Best, Ben
On 2/12/2017 2:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jerry - I'm sure you are joking. The format of a syllogism is:
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion
...with the additional format rules about 'universal', distribution,
negatives, etc etc..' Nothing to do with words per se.
Words are meaningful, in my view, only in specific contexts; they gain
their meaning within the context...and the context operates within a
format.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Jerry Rhee <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Edwina Taborsky <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* John Collier <mailto:[email protected]>; Benjamin Udell
<mailto:[email protected]>; Peirce-L <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 2:02 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Dear Edwina, list:
When you say it's not the words but the format that counts; is that
like saying, it's not the argumentation but the argument that counts?
For example, do you mean that it's CP 5.189 that counts and not C A B?
But what is CP 5.189 without C A B?
And what is C, A, B, without
syllogism, CP 5.189, growth of concrete reasonableness?
pragmatic maxim, CP 5.189, growth of concrete reasonableness?
That is, if I were only to take you literally, then I could ask,
/Among all words, is there a word?/
Best,
Jerry Rhee
p>On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Sorry, Jerry, I don't agree. It's not the words; it's the format
that counts. People think, not so much in words, but in images and
diagrams ....
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Jerry Rhee <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Edwina Taborsky <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* John Collier <mailto:[email protected]>; Benjamin Udell
<mailto:[email protected]>; Peirce-L <mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 1:25 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Dear list:
If words are only birds, then:
“CP 5.189 is NOT a syllogism!”
“CP 5.189 is not *the* pragmatic maxim, nor even *a* pragmatic
maxim in the same sense, so it is certainly not *the best*
pragmatic maxim.”
5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. ~Tractatus
Best, Jerry R
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 [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 .
