Changes

In this 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 1910 description of reflective thinking Dewey distinguishes two phases, “a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt” and “an act of search or investigation” (Dewey 1991, 9), comprehensive stages which are further refined in his later model of inquiry.  In this example, reflection is the act of the interpreter which establishes a fund of connections between the sensory shock of coolness and the objective danger of rain, by way of his impression that rain is likely.  But reflection is more than irresponsible speculation.  In reflection the interpreter acts to charge or defuse the thought of rain (the probability of rain in thought) by seeking other signs which this thought implies and evaluating the thought according to the results of this search.

In this 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 1910 description of reflective thinking Dewey distinguishes two phases, “a state of perplexity, hesitation, doubt” and “an act of search or investigation” (Dewey 1991, 9), comprehensive stages which are further refined in his later model of inquiry.  In this example, reflection is the act of the interpreter which establishes a fund of connections between the sensory shock of coolness and the objective danger of rain, by way of his impression that rain is likely.  But reflection is more than irresponsible speculation.  In reflection the interpreter acts to charge or defuse the thought of rain (the probability of rain in thought) by seeking other signs which this thought implies and evaluating the thought according to the results of this search.

Figure 9 illustrates Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example, 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 dyadic faces of the sign relation are labeled with just a few of the loosest terms that apply, indicating the “significance” of signs for eventual occurrences and the “correspondence&rdqu; of ideas with external orientations.  Nothing essential is meant by these dyadic role distinctions, since it is only in special or degenerate cases that their shadowy projections can maintain enough information to determine the original sign relation.

Figure 9 illustrates Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example, 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 dyadic faces of the sign relation are labeled with just a few of the loosest terms that apply, indicating the “significance” of signs for eventual occurrences and the “correspondence&rdqu; of ideas with external orientations.  Nothing essential is meant by these dyadic role distinctions, since it is only in special or degenerate cases that their shadowy projections can maintain enough information to determine the original sign relation.

{| align="center" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:center"

{| align="center" cellpadding="4" style="text-align:center"

| [[Image:Signs And Inquiry In Dewey.gif|600px]]

| [[Image:Signs And Inquiry In Dewey.gif|600px]]

|-

|-

| <math>\text{Figure 9. Signs and Inquiry in Dewey}</math>

| <math>\text{Figure 9. Signs and Inquiry in Dewey}</math>

|}

|}