Q: Is inquiry any process that has the aim of augmenting knowledge? ¶
A: Yes, and resolving doubt, or solving a problem.
Q: Is inquiry through the learning of rules? ¶
A: Yes, that is, by creating each of the rules that goes into the knowledge base, or ever gets used along the way.
Q: Was inquiry extracted by Peirce from its raw materials in classical logic? ¶
A: Yes, and with a little bit of help from Kant, and refined in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic by Boole, De Morgan, and Peirce himself to address problems about the nature and conduct of scientific reasoning.
Q: Is inquiry through the exploit of analogy? ¶
A: Yes, and a two-step combination of induction and deduction that serves to transfer rules from one context to another.
Q: Are inquiries typically woven into larger inquiries? ¶
A: Yes, and whether we view the whole pattern of inquiry as carried on by a single agent or by a complex community.
Q: Is inquiry closely associated with the normative science of logic? ¶
Q: Is inquiry successful? ¶
A: Yes, and leading to an increase in knowledge or in skills.
Q: Is inquiry to reduce doubt and lead to a state of belief? ¶
A: Yes, and which a person in that state will usually call knowledge or certainty.
Q: Is inquiry true to the pattern of deductive inference? ¶
Q: Is inquiry an account of the various types of inquiry and a treatment of the ways that each type of inquiry achieves its aim? ¶