Lists, I'd add to this nice outline by Ben the only book length treatment of Peirce's classification which offers, as I recall (I'll check when I've returned to my NYC apartment by the middle of next week) at least a dozen versions, the final version called there the "perennial" version: Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences McGill-Queens University Press - January 1, 1987
Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > Peirce's classification from the "Syllabus" (1903) > http://web.archive.org/web/20111105121054/http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/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 > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
