Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

ONT Re: Extension x Comprehension = Information




¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

Let us now consider Peirce's alternate example of a disjunctive term,
"neat, swine, sheep, deer", which he commonly borrows from classical
and scholastic discussions as a stock example of inductive reasoning.

| Hence if we find out that neat are herbivorous, swine are herbivorous,
| sheep are herbivorous, and deer are herbivorous;  we may be sure that
| there is some class of animals which covers all these, all the members
| of which are herbivorous.

| Accordingly, if we are engaged in symbolizing and we come to such
| a proposition as "Neat, swine, sheep, and deer are herbivorous",
| we know firstly that the disjunctive term may be replaced by
| a true symbol.  But suppose we know of no symbol for neat,
| swine, sheep, and deer except cloven-hoofed animals.

In view of the analogical symmetries that it shares with the
conjunctive case, I think that we can run through this example
in fairly short order.  We have the aggregation over four terms:

| s_1  =  neat
| s_2  =  swine
| s_3  =  sheep
| s_4  =  deer

Suppose that u is the logical disjunction of these terms:

| u  =  ((s_1)(s_2)(s_3)(s_4)).

Figure 2 illustrates the situation that we have before us.

|                w = herbivorous
|                o
|                * *     Rule
|                *   *   v=>w
|                *     *
|                *       *
|                *         *
|           Fact *           o v = cloven-hoofed
|                *         *
|                *       *
|                *     * Case
|                *   *
|                * *
|                o u = ((neat(swine)(sheep)(deer))
|              .. ..
|            . .   . .
|          .  .     .  .
|        .   .       .   .
|      .    .         .    .
|    o     o           o     o
|   s_1   s_2         s_3   s_4
|
| Figure 2.  Disjunctive Term u, Taken As Subject

In a similar but dual fashion to what we observed before, there is a gap
between the the logical disjunction u, expressed in lattice terminology,
the "least upper bound" (lub) of the disjoined terms, u = lub(s_j), and
what we might well call their "natural disjunction" v = cloven-hoofed.

Once again, the sheer implausibility of imagining that
the disjunctive term u would ever be embedded exactly
per se in a lattice of natural kinds, leads to the
evident "naturalness" of the induction to v => w,
namely, the rule that cloven-hoofed animals are
herbivorous.  Yes, that means unicorns, too.

Stock example, indeed!

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤