Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 4
• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/31/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-4/

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-example.jpg

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/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

Regards,

Jon

cc: https://www.academia.edu/community/LgvMJV
cc: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/111829392534115897_______________________________________________
CG mailing list -- cg@lists.iccs-conference.org
To unsubscribe send an email to cg-leave@lists.iccs-conference.org