Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 6

Inquiry and Induction

To understand the bearing of inductive reasoning on the closing phases of inquiry there are a couple of observations we should make.

  • Smaller inquiries are typically woven into larger inquiries, whether the whole pattern of inquiry is carried on by a single agent or by a complex community.
  • There are several ways particular instances of inquiry are related to ongoing inquiries at larger scales.  Three modes of interaction between component inquiries and compound inquiries may be described under the headings of Learning, Transfer, and Testing of Rules.

Throughout the course of inquiry the reasoner makes use of rules which have to be transported across intervals of experience, from masses of experience where they are learned to moments of experience where they are applied.  Inductive reasoning is involved in the learning and transfer of those rules, both in accumulating a knowledge base and in carrying it through the times between acquisition and application.

Learning
The main way induction contributes to an ongoing inquiry is through the learning of rules, that is, by creating each rule added to a knowledge base, or any rule used along the way.
Transfer
The next way induction contributes to an ongoing inquiry is through the operation of analogy, a two‑step combination of induction and deduction which serves to transfer rules from one context to another.
Testing
Finally, every inquiry making use of a knowledge base amounts to a “field test” of its rules.  If the knowledge base fails to serve any live inquiry in a satisfactory way then there is reason to reconsider and possibly amend its rules.

Next time we’ll examine how the principles of learning, transfer, and testing apply to Dewey’s “Sign of Rain” example.

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 6

  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.