Information = Comprehension × Extension • Comment 6
•
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/10/23/information-comprehension-x-exten…
Re: Information = Comprehension × Extension • Comment 2
•
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/10/12/information-comprehension-x-exten…
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 can't say I'm entirely
satisfied with my understanding of the relationship between disjunctive
terms, indicial signs, and inductive inferences as presented by Peirce
in his early accounts. What follows is just one of the simplest and
least question‑begging attempts at rational reconstruction I've been
able to devise.
Figure 2 shows the implication ordering of logical terms in the form of a lattice
diagram.
Figure 2. Disjunctive Term u, Taken as Subject
•
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ice-figure-2.jpg
Figure 4 shows an inductive step of inquiry, as taken on the cue of an indicial sign.
Figure 4. Disjunctive Subject u, Induction of Rule v ⇒ w
•
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/ice-figure-4.jpg
If there is any distinguishing feature shared by all the instances under the
disjunctive description “neat, swine, sheep, deer” then sign users may take
that feature as a predictor of being herbivorous, precisely because all the
things under the disjunctive description are herbivorous. But everything
under the disjunctive description is cloven‑hoofed, so the cases under the
disjunctive description serve to indicate, support, or witness the utility
of the induction from cloven‑hoofed to herbivorous.
Reference —
Peirce, C.S. (1866), “The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis”,
Lowell Lectures of 1866, pp. 357–504 in Writings of Charles S. Peirce :
A Chronological Edition, Volume 1, 1857–1866, Peirce Edition Project,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1982.
Regards,
Jon
cc:
https://www.academia.edu/community/LZZP9d