Gary f, list:
Thank you for that posting. I must assert though, I am surprised that if A is true, B is true, for I thought: if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Does B and not C surprise you? http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/L75/ver1/l75v1-04.htm Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:36 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Continuing from Lowell 2.3, > > https://www.fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce- > manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903-lowell-lecture-ii/display/13602: > > > > The most immediately useful information is that which is conveyed in > conditional propositions, “*If* you find that this is true, *then* you > may know that that is true.” Now in ordinary language the conditional form > is employed to express a variety of relations between one possibility and > another. Very frequently when we say “If A is true, then B is true,” we > have in mind a whole range of possibilities, and we assert that among all > possible cases, every one of those in which A is true will turn out to be a > case in which B is true also. But in order to obtain a way of expressing > that sort of conditional proposition, we must begin by getting a way of > expressing a simpler kind, which does not often occur in ordinary speech > but which has great importance in logic. The sort of conditional > proposition I mean is one in which no range of possibilities is > contemplated, which speaks only of the actual state of things. “If A is > true then B is true,” in this sense is called a conditional proposition *de > inesse*. In case A is not true, it makes no assertion at all and > therefore involves no falsity. And since every proposition is either true > or false, if the antecedent, A, is not true, the conditional *de inesse* > is true, no matter how it may be with B. In case the consequent, B, is > true, all that the conditional *de inesse* asserts is true, and therefore > it is true, no matter how it may be with A. If however the antecedent, A, > is true, while the consequent, B, is false, then, and then only is the > conditional proposition *de inesse* false. This sort of conditional says > nothing at all about any real connection between antecedent and consequent; > but limits itself to saying “If you should find that A is true, then you > may know that B is true,” never mind the why or wherefore. > > > > *http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell2.htm <http://gnusystems.ca/Lowell2.htm>* }{ > Peirce’s Lowell Lectures of 1903 > > https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903- > lowell-lecture-ii > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
