Functional Logic • Inquiry and Analogy • Discussion 1

Re: Functional Logic • Inquiry and Analogy • 8

Post 8 used the following Figure to illustrate Dewey’s example of a simple inquiry process.

Dewey's “Sign of Rain” Example
\text{Dewey's ``Sign of Rain" Example}

John Mingers shared the following observations.

JM:
Liked the example — a couple of questions/comments.

  1. In the diagram you have included with the Triadic sign, although with dotted lines, an interpretive agent.  Now I thought that Peirce was a bit cagey about this.  Wasn’t he clear that the interpretant was not to be identified with an actual interpreter?  What is your thinking on this?
  2. I do agree that there needs to be an interpreter but does it need to be a person?  Surely it could be any organism that can interact with relations?

The cool air is something our hero interprets as a sign of rain and his thought of rain is an interpretant sign of the very same object.  The relation between the interpretant sign and the interpretive agent is clear enough as far as a beginning level of description goes.  But a fully pragmatic, semiotic, and system-theoretic account will demand a more fine-grained analysis of what goes on in the inquiry process.

Speaking very roughly, an interpreter is any agent or system — animal, vegetable, or mineral — which actualizes or embodies a triadic sign relation.

Several passages from Peirce will help to flesh out the bare abstractions.  I’ll begin collecting them on the linked blog page and discuss them further as we proceed.

Previous Discussions

Related Resources

Reference

  • Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.  ArchiveJournal.  Online (doc) (pdf).

cc: FB | Peirce MattersLaws of FormMathstodonOntologAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Abduction, Analogy, Argument, Aristotle, C.S. Peirce, Constraint, Deduction, Determination, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Diagrams, Differential Logic, Functional Logic, Hypothesis, Indication, Induction, Inference, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Science, Mathematics, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Probable Reasoning, Propositional Calculus, Propositions, Reasoning, Retroduction, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Syllogism, Triadic Relations, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Functional Logic • Inquiry and Analogy • Discussion 1

  1. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 4 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  4. Pingback: Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • 5 | Systems Community of Inquiry

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.