My cut and paste missed the author, Beverly Kent, *of Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences*. GR
[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 2:14 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <718%20482-5690>* > > 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 .
