Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 5

Inquiry and Inference

If we follow Dewey’s “Sign of Rain” story far enough to consider the import of thought for action, we realize the subsequent conduct of the interpreter, progressing up through the natural conclusion of the episode — the quickening steps, the seeking of shelter in time to escape the rain — all those acts amount to a series of further interpretants for the initially recognized signs of rain and the first impressions of the actual case.  Just as critical reflection develops the positive and negative signs which gather about an idea, pragmatic interpretation explores the consequential and contrasting actions which give effective and testable meaning to a person’s belief in it.

Figure 3 charts the progress of inquiry in Dewey’s narrative according to the stages of reasoning identified in Peirce’s theory of inquiry, focusing on the compound pattern of inference formed by the first two steps.

Cycle of Inquiry
\text{Figure 3. Cycle of Inquiry}

  • Step 1 is Abductive, abstracting a Case from the consideration of a Fact and a Rule.
    • \begin{array}{lll} \textsc{Fact} & : & {C \Rightarrow A}, \end{array}     In the Current situation the Air is cool.
    • \begin{array}{lll} \textsc{Rule} & : & {B \Rightarrow A}, \end{array}     Just Before it rains, the Air is cool.
    • \begin{array}{lll} \textsc{Case} & : & {C \Rightarrow B}, \end{array}     The Current situation is just Before it rains.
  • Step 2 is Deductive, admitting the Case to another Rule and arriving at a novel Fact.
    • \begin{array}{lll} \textsc{Case} & : & {C \Rightarrow B}, \end{array}     The Current situation is just Before it rains.
    • \begin{array}{lll} \textsc{Rule} & : & {B \Rightarrow D}, \end{array}     Just Before it rains, a Dark cloud will appear.
    • \begin{array}{lll} \textsc{Fact} & : & {C \Rightarrow D}, \end{array}     In the Current situation, a Dark cloud will appear.

What precedes is nowhere near a complete analysis of Dewey’s example, even so far as it might be carried out within the constraints of the syllogistic framework, and it covers only the first two steps of the inquiry process, but perhaps it will do for a start.

References

  • 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).
  • Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA.  Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.  Online.

Resources

cc: Academia.eduBlueSkyLaws of FormMathstodonResearch Gate
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Interpretive Frameworks, Logic, Logical Graphs, Objective Frameworks, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 5

  1. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  3. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  4. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 6 | Systems Community of Inquiry

Leave a comment

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