Stan, Howard, Gary F., lists,
Stan, the ordering of the special sciences that you provided, with which
I roughly agree for my part, is not quite the same as Peirce's.
Moreover, the ordering that Gary F. referenced was not one within the
special sciences (as Peirce called them) - physical, chemical,
biological, sociological, etc., but instead an ordering within a larger
classification. Here's a summary of Peirce's later views of the ordering
of the sciences:
A. Discovery sciences:
1. (Pure) mathematics. Deduction about purely hypothetical objects.
2. Cenoscopy, also called _/philosophia prima/_, also called
philosophy for short. Analysis, by phaneroscopic method, of positive
phenomena in general.*
i. Phaneroscopy, also called phenomenology, also called categorics.
ii. Normative sciences (a. esthetics, b. ethics, c. logic (as formal
semiotic)).
iii. Metaphysics (a. ontology, b. religious metaphysics, c., physical
metaphysics).
* 3. Idioscopy, also called the special sciences (two wings: physical
(efficient-causal) and mental (final-causal), Peirce is unsure about
whether physical or mental is prior and about whether the order matters;
anyway, orthogonally to the physical-mental distinction, Peirce makes a
three-way distinction into a. nomological sciences (about the universal
laws and elements of physical or mental phenomena), b. classificatory
sciences, c. descriptive sciences). Idioscopy makes special experiments
/ experiences of special classes of positive phenomena. The nomological
/ classificatory distinction to some extent involves the ordering
physical, chemical, biological, in Peirce's system at that time.
B. Review sciences, also called synthetic philosophy, also called
_/philosophia ultima/_. This attempts to build a philosophy of science
on the basis of results from the discovery sciences. Examples of this
nature include Humboldt's _Cosmos_, Comte's _Philosophie positive_,
Spencer's _Synthetic Philosophy_. The work of classifying the sciences
belongs in this department.
C. Practical sciences, also called the arts.
On Peirce's classifications in the later years, See:
Tommi Vehkavaara's chart
http://people.uta.fi/~attove/peirce_systems3.PDF
<http://people.uta.fi/%7Eattove/peirce_systems3.PDF>
Peirce's classification from the "Syllabus" (1903)
http://web.archive.org/web/20111105121054/http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/peirce/cl_o_sci_03.htm
<http://web.archive.org/web/20111105121054/http://www.princeton.edu/%7Ebatke/peirce/cl_o_sci_03.htm>
My Wikipedia article on it, which contains many footnotes with links :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_%28Peirce%29
Peirce's earlier as well as later classification:
Tommi Vehkavaara's other chart http://www.uta.fi/~attove/peirce_syst.PDF
<http://www.uta.fi/%7Eattove/peirce_syst.PDF>
Best, Ben
On 12/7/2014 11:00 AM, Stanley N Salthe wrote:
Howard --
HP: 12/6/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
GF: Peirce saw the sciences as organized hierarchically, and
logic/semiotics as"higher" than any specialized science (such as
physics or psychology or biology), since all reasoning and inquiry
is a form of semiosis.
HP: Not persuasive.
GF: It wasn’t supposed to be persuasive. It was supposed to be
descriptive of Peirce’s view of the sciences. We already know that
you view them differently.
SS: If we understand the meaning of the Spencer-Comte-Peirce
hierarchy (a subsumptive hierarchy
{physics {chemistry {biology {sociology}}}}
I think it is impossible to be unpersuaded by it!
Surely chemistry depends upon physical forces, while biology depends
upon chemistry!, while each more inner subclass adds more
‘information’ as it harnesses the more outer classes to its requirements.
In what way is this “unpersuasive”
STAN
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Howard,
It wasn’t supposed to be persuasive. It was supposed to be
descriptive of Peirce’s view of the sciences. We already know that
you view them differently.
gary f.
From: Howard Pattee
Sent: 6-Dec-14 8:24 PM
At 09:54 AM 12/6/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Peirce saw the sciences as organized hierarchically, and
logic/semiotics as"higher" than any specialized science (such as
physics or psychology or biology), since all reasoning and inquiry
is a form of semiosis.
HP: Not persuasive. See Penrose's 3 worlds
https://www.google.com/search?q=penrose+3+worlds+platonic+physical+mental&tbm=isch
Howard
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
