Yikes! My inner William James just raised an eyebrow. This is probably a
separate thread... but how did we suddenly start making claims about the
nature of other people's thoughts?
"People think, not so much in words, but in images and diagrams..." They
do? How many people's thoughts have we interrogated to determine that?
"Consciousness is inherently linguistic." It is? How much have we studied
altered states of consciousness, or even typical consciousness?
Sorry, these parts of Peirce always make me a bit twitchy. I'm quite
comfortable when he is talking about how scientists-qua-scientists think or
act, but then he makes more general statements and I get worried.
Best,
Eric
-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echar...@american.edu>
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben, list:
>
>
>
> You said,
>
> “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.”
>
>
>
> I know well from our previous discussions that you are cognizant that the
> usual meaning of the unmodified term “syllogism” can be inadequate.
>
>
>
> In dealing with syllogism in the Aristotelian sense, it is clear to me
> that Peirce was only doing what Aristotle recommended:
>
>
>
> “He may not indeed destroy the framework of the received legends-… but he
> ought to show of his own, and skillfully handle the traditional material.”
> ~Aristotle, *Poetics*
>
>
>
> In all our inquiry, what we seek is the middle term.
>
>
>
> In abduction (second figure), the middle term is C.
>
> In deduction (first figure), the middle term is A.
>
> In induction (third figure), the middle term is B.
>
>
>
> “It is a good enthymeme, not an enthymeme as such, which omits to
> formulate premises that the audience can supply for themselves...”
> ~Burnyeat, Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion
>
>
>
> Hth,
> Jerry Rhee
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <jerryr...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
>> *Cc:* John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Benjamin Udell
>> <baud...@gmail.com>; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>> *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 <tabor...@primus.ca>
>> 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 <jerryr...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
>> *Cc:* John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Benjamin Udell
>> <baud...@gmail.com>; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>> *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 <tabor...@primus.ca >
>> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
