Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 4 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/09/interpreter-and-interpretant-sele… 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 time he observed it; but presently he notes, while occupied primarily with other things, that the air is cooler. It occurs to him that it is probably going to rain; looking up, he sees a dark cloud between him and the sun, and he then quickens his steps. ❝What, if anything, in such a situation can be called thought? Neither the act of walking nor the noting of the cold is a thought. Walking is one direction of activity; looking and noting are other modes of activity. The likelihood that it will rain is, however, something suggested. The pedestrian feels the cold; he thinks of clouds and a coming shower.❞ (John Dewey, How We Think, 6–7). In Dewey's narrative we can identify the characters of the sign relation as follows. Coolness is a Sign of the Object rain, and the Interpretant is the thought of the rain's likelihood. In his description of reflective thinking Dewey distinguishes two phases, “a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt” and “an act of search or investigation” (p. 9), comprehensive stages which are further refined in his later model of inquiry. Reflection is the action the interpreter takes to establish a fund of connections between the sensory shock of coolness and the objective danger of rain by way of the impression rain is likely. But reflection is more than irresponsible speculation. In reflection the interpreter acts to charge or defuse the thought of rain by seeking other signs the thought implies and evaluating the thought according to the results of that search. Figure 2 shows the semiotic relationships involved in Dewey's story, tracing the structure and function of the sign relation as it informs the activity of inquiry, including both the movements of surprise explanation and intentional action. The labels on the outer edges of the sign‑relational triple suggest the significance of signs for eventual occurrences and the correspondence of ideas with external orientations. But there is nothing essential about the dyadic role distinctions they imply, as it is only in special or degenerate cases that such projections preserve enough information to determine the original sign relation. Figure 2. Dewey's “Sign of Rain” Example • https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2022/04/deweys-sign-of-rain-… References — Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. • https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm 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. • https://web.archive.org/web/20001210162300/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquir… • https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052 • https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqui… • https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqu… Regards, Jon

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 6 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/13/interpreter-and-interpretant-sele… 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. • https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052 • https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqu… Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. • https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm Resources — Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/28/survey-of-inquiry-driven-systems-… Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign… Regards, Jon

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 8 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/24/interpreter-and-interpretant-sele… Transfer — What exactly gives the acquisition of a knowledge base its distinctively inductive character? It is evidently the “analogy of experience” involved in applying what we've learned in the past to what confronts us in the present. Whenever we find ourselves approaching a problem with the thought, “If past experience is any guide …” we can be sure the analogy of experience has come into play. We are seeking to find analogies between past experience as a totality and present experience as a point of application. From a statistical point of view what we mean is this — “If past experience is a fair sample of possible experience then knowledge gained from past experience may usefully apply to present experience”. It is that mechanism which allows a knowledge base to be carried across gulfs of experience which remain indifferent to the effective contents of its rules. Next we'll examine how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works out in the case of 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. • https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052 • https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqu… Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. • https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm Resources — Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/27/survey-of-abduction-deduction-ind… Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign… Regards, Jon

Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 10 • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/02/11/interpreter-and-interpretant-sele… Transfer — Returning to the scene of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example, let's continue examining how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works in that case. By way of a recap, we began by considering a fragment K_pres of the reasoner's knowledge base which is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two rules. • K_pres ⇔ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (B ⇒ D). K_pres may be thought of as a piece of knowledge or item of information allowing for the possibility of certain conditions, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse. Next we found it convenient to express all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or elements of experience over which they hold true. • Let E_past be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances in mind under “past experience”. • Let E_poss be the collective set of experiences, or the prospective total of possible circumstances. • Let E_pres be the current experience, or the circumstances immediately present to the reasoner. If we think of the knowledge base K_pres as referring to the “regime of experience” over which it is valid, then the sets of models involved in the analogy may be ordered according to the relationships of set inclusion or logical implication existing among them. Figure 4 shows the subsumption relations involved in the analogy of experience. Figure 4. Analogy of Experience • https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2025/02/analogy-of-experienc… In logical terms, the analogy of experience proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then by deducing a Fact, the applicability of that knowledge base to a current experience. Step 1 is Inductive, abstracting a Rule from a Case and a Fact. • Case : E_past ⇒ E_poss, Chosen events fairly sample Collective events. • Fact : E_past ⇒ K_pres, Chosen events support the Knowledge regime. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── • Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime. Step 2 is Deductive, admitting a Case to a Rule and arriving at a Fact. • Case : E_pres ⇒ E_poss, Current events fairly sample Collective events. • Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime. ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── • Fact : E_pres ⇒ K_pres, Current events support the Knowledge regime. 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. • https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052 • https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inqu… Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY. • https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm Resources — Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/27/survey-of-abduction-deduction-ind… Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign… Regards, Jon