Category Archives: Triadic Relations

Learning Rules in a knowledge base, as far as their effective content goes, can be obtained by any mode of inference.  For example, consider a proposition of the following form. Such a proposition is usually induced from a consideration of … Continue reading →

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 … Continue reading →

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 … Continue reading →

Interpretation and Inquiry To illustrate the role of sign relations in inquiry we begin with Dewey’s elegant and simple example of reflective thinking in everyday life. A man is walking on a warm day.  The sky was clear the last … Continue reading →

The following selection from Peirce’s “Lowell Lectures on the Logic of Science” (1866) lays out in detail his “metaphorical argument” for the relationship between interpreters and interpretant signs. I think we need to reflect upon the circumstance that every word implies … Continue reading →

A idea of what Peirce means by an Interpretant and the part it plays in a triadic sign relation is given by the following passage. It is clearly indispensable to start with an accurate and broad analysis of the nature … Continue reading →

Questions about the relationship between “interpreters” and “interpretants” in Peircean semiotics have broken out again.  To put the matter as pointedly as possible — because I know someone or other is bound to — “In a theory of three‑place relations … Continue reading →