Changes

====1.4.1.  The Matrix of Inquiry====

====1.4.1.  The Matrix of Inquiry====

<pre>

<blockquote>

| Thus when mothers have chidren suffering from sleeplessness,

Thus when mothers have chidren suffering from sleeplessness, and want to lull them to rest, the treatment they apply is to give them, not quiet, but motion, for they rock them constantly in their arms;  and instead of silence, they use a kind of crooning noise;  and thus they literally cast a spell upon the children (like the victims of a Bacchic frenzy) by employing the combined movements of dance and song as a remedy. (Plato, ''Laws'', VII, 790D).

| and want to lull them to rest, the treatment they apply is

| to give them, not quiet, but motion, for they rock them

| constantly in their arms;  and instead of silence, they

| use a kind of crooning noise;  and thus they literally

| cast a spell upon the children (like the victims of

| a Bacchic frenzy) by employing the combined movements

| of dance and song as a remedy.

| Plato, 'Laws', VII, 790D

Try as I may, I've never seen a way to develop a theory of inquiry from nothing:

Try as I may, I've never seen a way to develop a theory of inquiry from nothing: To take for granted nothing more than is already given, to set out from nothing but absolutely certain beginnings, to move forward with nothing but absolutely certain means of proceeding.  In particular, the present inquiry into inquiry, foreshadowed in the form y_0 = y·y, ought not to be misconstrued as a device for magically generating a theory of inquiry from nothing.  Like any other inquiry, it requires an agent to invest in a conjecture, to make a guess about the pertinent features of the subject of interest, and to choose the actions, the aspects, and the attitudes with regard to the subject that are critical to achieving the intended objectives of the study.

To take for granted nothing more than is already given, to set out from nothing

but absolutely certain beginnings, to move forward with nothing but absolutely

certain means of proceeding.  In particular, the present inquiry into inquiry,

foreshadowed in the form y_0 = y·y, ought not to be misconstrued as a device

for magically generating a theory of inquiry from nothing.  Like any other

inquiry, it requires an agent to invest in a conjecture, to make a guess

about the pertinent features of the subject of interest, and to choose

the actions, the aspects, and the attitudes with regard to the subject

that are critical to achieving the intended objectives of the study.

I can sum all this up by saying that an inquiry requires an inquirer to

I can sum all this up by saying that an inquiry requires an inquirer to suggest a hypothesis about the subject of interest and then to put that particular model of the subject to the test.  This in turn requires one to devote a modicum of personal effort to the task of testing the chosen hypothesis, to put a quantum of personal interest at stake for the sake of finding out whether the model fits the subject, and, overall, to take the risk of being wrong.  Any model that is feasible is also defeasible, at least, where it concerns a contingent subject of contingent inquiry.

suggest a hypothesis about the subject of interest and then to put that

particular model of the subject to the test.  This in turn requires one

to devote a modicum of personal effort to the task of testing the chosen

hypothesis, to put a quantum of personal interest at stake for the sake

of finding out whether the model fits the subject, and, overall, to take

the risk of being wrong.  Any model that is feasible is also defeasible,

at least, where it concerns a contingent subject of contingent inquiry.

The first step, then, of an inquiry into inquiry, is to put forth a tentative

The first step, then, of an inquiry into inquiry, is to put forth a tentative model of inquiry, to make a hypothesis about the features of inquiry that are essential to explaining its experienced characteristics, and thus, in a sense, to make a guess at the very definition of inquiry.  This requirement seems both obvious and outrageous at the same time.  One is perfectly justified in objecting that there is much that precedes this so-called "first step", namely, the body of experience that prepares one to see it and the mass of observation that prompts one to take it.  I can deal with this objection by making a distinction between mundane experience and olympian theory, and then by saying that the making of a conjecture is really the first "theoretical" step, but this is a hedge that covers the tracks of theory in a very deceptive way, hiding how early in the empirical process the "cloven hoof" of theory actually enters.

model of inquiry, to make a hypothesis about the features of inquiry that are

essential to explaining its experienced characteristics, and thus, in a sense,

to make a guess at the very definition of inquiry.  This requirement seems both

obvious and outrageous at the same time.  One is perfectly justified in objecting

that there is much that precedes this so-called "first step", namely, the body of

experience that prepares one to see it and the mass of observation that prompts one

to take it.  I can deal with this objection by making a distinction between mundane

experience and olympian theory, and then by saying that the making of a conjecture

is really the first "theoretical" step, but this is a hedge that covers the tracks

of theory in a very deceptive way, hiding how early in the empirical process the

"cloven hoof" of theory actually enters.

Leaving behind the mythical states of "pure" experience and "naive" observation,

Leaving behind the mythical states of "pure" experience and "naive" observation, and at least by the time that one has come to give a name to the subject of the investigation, one's trek through the data is already half-shod, half-fettered by the connotations of the name, and in their turn by all of the concepts that it invokes in its train.  That name, the concepts that it suggests, and the tacit but vague definition of the subject that this complex of associations is already beginning to constellate, to attract certain experiences to the complex, and to filter out other observations from having any bearing on the subject matter.  By this time, one is already busy translating one's empirical acquaintance with the subject into an arrangement of concepts that is intended to define its essential nature.

and at least by the time that one has come to give a name to the subject of the

investigation, one's trek through the data is already half-shod, half-fettered

by the connotations of the name, and in their turn by all of the concepts that

it invokes in its train.  That name, the concepts that it suggests, and the

tacit but vague definition of the subject that this complex of associations

is already beginning to constellate, to attract certain experiences to the

complex, and to filter out other observations from having any bearing on

the subject matter.  By this time, one is already busy translating one's

empirical acquaintance with the subject into an arrangement of concepts

that is intended to define its essential nature.

An array of concepts that is set up in order to capture the essence

An array of concepts that is set up in order to capture the essence of a subject is a provisional definition of it, an implicit model of the subject that contains the makings of an explicit theory. It amounts to a selection from the phenomenal aspects of the subject, expresses a guess about its relevant features, and constitutes a hypothesis in explanation of its experienced characteristics.  This incipient order of model or theory is tantamount to a definition because it sets bounds on the "stretches" and the "holds" of a term &mdash; that is, the extension, intension, and intention of the term &mdash; but this is not the kind of definition that has to be taken on faith, that constitutes the first and the last word on the subject.  In other words, it is an empirical definition, one that is subject to being falsified in reference to its intended subject, by failing to indicate the necessary, the pertinent, or the relevant features that account for the presence of its phenomena or the persistence of its process.

of a subject is a provisional definition of it, an implicit model

of the subject that contains the makings of an explicit theory.

It amounts to a selection from the phenomenal aspects of the

subject, expresses a guess about its relevant features, and

constitutes a hypothesis in explanation of its experienced

characteristics.  This incipient order of model or theory

is tantamount to a definition because it sets bounds on

the "stretches" and the "holds" of a term -- that is,

the extension, intension, and intention of the term --

but this is not the kind of definition that has to

be taken on faith, that constitutes the first and

the last word on the subject.  In other words,

it is an empirical definition, one that is

subject to being falsified in reference

to its intended subject, by failing to

indicate the necessary, the pertinent,

or the relevant features that account

for the presence of its phenomena or

the persistence of its process.

If I reflect on the conduct of inquiry,

If I reflect on the conduct of inquiry, seeking to fix it in a fitting image and trying to cast it in a positive light, the best I can do is this:

seeking to fix it in a fitting image

and trying to cast it in a positive

light, the best I can do is this:

Inquiry is a process that aims at achieving belief or knowledge.

: Inquiry is a process that aims at achieving belief or knowledge.

But even this simple a description already plunges the discussion deep into

But even this simple a description already plunges the discussion deep into a number of obscurities.  Most prominently, there is the disjunction between belief and knowledge that cries out to be explained or resolved.  Stirring a little beneath the surface, and not quite fading into the background, many of the other terms that are invoked in the description are capable of hiding the entire contents of the original ignorance that the image as a whole is aimed to dispel.  And yet there is nothing that I can do in this avowedly positive context but to mark these points down as topics for future discussion.

a number of obscurities.  Most prominently, there is the disjunction between

belief and knowledge that cries out to be explained or resolved.  Stirring a

little beneath the surface, and not quite fading into the background, many of

the other terms that are invoked in the description are capable of hiding the

entire contents of the original ignorance that the image as a whole is aimed

to dispell.  And yet there is nothing that I can do in this avowedly positive

context but to mark these points down as topics for future discussion.

There is already a model of inquiry that is implicit,

There is already a model of inquiry that is implicit, at least partially, in the text of the above description. Let me see if I can tease out a few of its tacit assumptions.

at least partially, in the text of the above description.

Let me see if I can tease out a few of its tacit assumptions.

I am using the word "inquiry" in a way that is roughly synonymous with the term "scientific method".  Use of "inquiry" is more convenient, aside from being the shorter term, because of the following advantages:  (1) It allows one to broaden the scope of investigation to include any form of proceeding toward knowledge that merely aims at such a method.  (2) It allows one to finesse the issue, for the time being, of how much "method" there is in science.

I am using the word "inquiry" in a way that is roughly synonymous with the term "scientific method".  Use of "inquiry" is more convenient, aside from being the shorter term, because of the following advantages:  (1) It allows one to broaden the scope of investigation to include any form of proceeding toward knowledge that merely aims at such a method.  (2) It allows one to finesse the issue, for the time being, of how much "method" there is in science.

The reader may take my apology for this style of presentation to be implicit in its dogmatic character.  It is done this way in a first approach for the sake of avoiding an immense number of distractions, each of which is not being slighted but demands to be addressed in its own good time.  I want to convey the general drift of my current model, however conjectural, naive, uncritical, and unreflective it may seem.

The reader may take my apology for this style of presentation to be implicit in its dogmatic character.  It is done this way in a first approach for the sake of avoiding an immense number of distractions, each of which is not being slighted but demands to be addressed in its own good time.  I want to convey the general drift of my current model, however conjectural, naive, uncritical, and unreflective it may seem.

====1.4.1  The Matrix of Inquiry (2)====

====1.4.1  The Matrix of Inquiry (2)====