Tag Archives: Information = Comprehension × Extension

Let’s stay with Peirce’s example of inductive inference a little longer and try to clear up the more troublesome confusions tending to arise. Figure 2 shows the implication ordering of logical terms in the form of a lattice diagram. Figure … Continue reading →

Re: Information = Comprehension × Extension • Comment 2 Returning to Peirce’s example of inductive inference, let’s try to get a clearer picture of why he connects it with disjunctive terms and indicial signs.  At this point in time I … Continue reading →

Let’s stay with Peirce’s example of abductive inference a little longer and try to clear up the more troublesome confusions tending to arise. Figure 1 shows the implication ordering of logical terms in the form of a lattice diagram. Figure … Continue reading →

Re: Information = Comprehension × Extension • Comment 3 Many things still puzzle me about Peirce’s account at this point.  The question marks I added to the Figures of the previous post indicate the node labels I have remaining doubts … Continue reading →

Peirce identifies inference with a process he describes as symbolization.  Let us consider what that might imply. I am going, next, to show that inference is symbolization and that the puzzle of the validity of scientific inference lies merely in … Continue reading →

Let’s examine Peirce’s second example of a disjunctive term — neat, swine, sheep, deer — within the style of lattice framework we used before. Hence if we find out that neat are herbivorous, swine are herbivorous, sheep are herbivorous, and … Continue reading →

Selection 1 ends with Peirce drawing the following conclusion about the links between information, comprehension, inference, and symbolization. Thus information measures the superfluous comprehension.  And, hence, whenever we make a symbol to express any thing or any attribute we cannot … Continue reading →