This paper discusses Flórez’s idea that an inference having the form of Peirce’s abduction is to be found in chapter 13 of the first book of the Posterior Analytics, where Aristotle expounds the distinction between “syllogism of the that” and “syllogism of the why.” It is shown that this idea is mistaken because all of Aristotle’s examples in APo. I.13 are deductively valid first-figure syllogisms (either of the why or of the that), while abduction is a deductively invalid second-figure syllogism.
Francesco Bellucci (2019). Aristotelian Abductions: A Reply to Flórez. TRANSACTIONS OF THE CHARLES S. PEIRCE SOCIETY, 55(2), 185-196 [10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.55.2.06].
Aristotelian Abductions: A Reply to Flórez
Francesco Bellucci
2019
Abstract
This paper discusses Flórez’s idea that an inference having the form of Peirce’s abduction is to be found in chapter 13 of the first book of the Posterior Analytics, where Aristotle expounds the distinction between “syllogism of the that” and “syllogism of the why.” It is shown that this idea is mistaken because all of Aristotle’s examples in APo. I.13 are deductively valid first-figure syllogisms (either of the why or of the that), while abduction is a deductively invalid second-figure syllogism.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
