12,080
edits
Changes
Directory:Jon Awbrey/Papers/Information = Comprehension × Extension (view source)
Revision as of 04:14, 14 May 2013
, 04:14, 14 May 2013→Commentary Note 13: center figures
In the process of rationalizing Peirce's account of induction to myself I find that I have now lost sight of the indexical sign relationships, so let me go back to the drawing board one more time to see if I can get the indexical and the inductive aspects of the situation back into the very same picture. Here is how we left off last time:
In the process of rationalizing Peirce's account of induction to myself I find that I have now lost sight of the indexical sign relationships, so let me go back to the drawing board one more time to see if I can get the indexical and the inductive aspects of the situation back into the very same picture. Here is how we left off last time:
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" style="text-align:center; width:70%"
|
<font face="courier new"><pre>
<font face="courier new"><pre>
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
</pre></font>
</pre></font>
|}
In this double-entry account we are more careful to distinguish the signs that belong to the ''interpretive framework'' (IF) from the objects that belong to the ''objective framework'' (OF). One benefit of this scheme is that it immediately resolves many of the conceptual puzzles that arise from confusing the roles of objects and the roles of signs in the relevant sign relation.
In this double-entry account we are more careful to distinguish the signs that belong to the ''interpretive framework'' (IF) from the objects that belong to the ''objective framework'' (OF). One benefit of this scheme is that it immediately resolves many of the conceptual puzzles that arise from confusing the roles of objects and the roles of signs in the relevant sign relation.
There we see an abstract example with the same logical structure and almost precisely the same labeling. It is a premiss of this argument that "''S''<sub>1</sub>, ''S''<sub>2</sub>, ''S''<sub>3</sub>, ''S''<sub>4</sub>" is an index of ''M''. But we are left wondering if he means the objective class ''M'' or the sign "''M''". If we take the quotation marks of "''S''<sub>1</sub>, ''S''<sub>2</sub>, ''S''<sub>3</sub>, ''S''<sub>4</sub>" as giving the disjunctive term equal to "''S''", then we have the next picture:
There we see an abstract example with the same logical structure and almost precisely the same labeling. It is a premiss of this argument that "''S''<sub>1</sub>, ''S''<sub>2</sub>, ''S''<sub>3</sub>, ''S''<sub>4</sub>" is an index of ''M''. But we are left wondering if he means the objective class ''M'' or the sign "''M''". If we take the quotation marks of "''S''<sub>1</sub>, ''S''<sub>2</sub>, ''S''<sub>3</sub>, ''S''<sub>4</sub>" as giving the disjunctive term equal to "''S''", then we have the next picture:
{| align="center" cellspacing="6" style="text-align:center; width:70%"
|
<font face="courier new"><pre>
<font face="courier new"><pre>
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
o-----------------------------o-----------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
o-----------------------------------------------------------o
</pre></font>
</pre></font>
|}
So we have two readings of what Peirce is saying:
So we have two readings of what Peirce is saying: