Tag Archives: Deduction

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Selection 6

Selection 1 opens with Peirce proposing, “The information of a term is the measure of its superfluous comprehension”, and it closes with his offering the following promise. I am going, next, to show that inference is symbolization and that the … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Selection 5

Peirce now turns to his example of a conjunctive term, which he uses to show the connection between iconic reference and abductive inference. A similar line of thought may be gone through in reference to hypothesis.  In this case we … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Selection 4

Selection 3 showed how it was possible to combine symbols in such a way as to end up with species of representation outside the class of genuine symbols and introduced the concepts of conjunctive terms and disjunctive terms to describe … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Selection 3

Selection 3 opens with Peirce remarking a critical property of genuine symbols — the class of symbols is not closed under combinations.  In particular, there are logical conjunctions of symbols and logical disjunctions of symbols which are not themselves genuine … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Selection 2

Over the course of Selection 1 Peirce introduces the ideas he needs to answer stubborn questions about the validity of scientific inference.  Briefly put, the validity of scientific inference depends on the ability of symbols to express superfluous comprehension, the … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Selection 1

I am going to begin with six selections from Peirce’s Lectures of 1866 where he addresses the roles of signs informing sign relations and their relation to the rules of inference governing inquiries. ⁂ ⁂ ⁂ Our first text comes … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble

Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce’s own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and … Continue reading

Posted in Abduction, C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Deduction, Extension, Hypothesis, Icon Index Symbol, Induction, Inference, Information = Comprehension × Extension, Inquiry, Intension, Logic, Peirce's Categories, Pragmatic Semiotic Information, Pragmatism, Scientific Method, Semiotics, Sign Relations | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 20

Re: Laws of Form • James Bowery JB: I’m interested in those who have approached the notion of self‑duality from the meta‑perspective of switching perspectives between Directed Cyclic Graphs of NiNAND and NiNOR gates (Ni for N‑Inputs à la boolean … Continue reading

Posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Time, Topology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 19

Re: Laws of Form • James Bowery JB: I’m interested in those who have approached the notion of self‑duality from the meta‑perspective of switching perspectives between Directed Cyclic Graphs of NiNAND and NiNOR gates (Ni for N‑Inputs à la boolean … Continue reading

Posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Time, Topology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 18

Re: Laws of Form • James Bowery JB: I’m interested in those who have approached the notion of self‑duality from the meta‑perspective of switching perspectives between Directed Cyclic Graphs of NiNAND and NiNOR gates (Ni for N‑Inputs à la boolean … Continue reading

Posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Differential Analytic Turing Automata, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Time, Topology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment