Ben, Jeff, lists, Peirce wrote :
"Biology might be regarded . . . . as the chemistry 97722-1) of the albumoids and of the forms they assume." This view of biology must be judged inaccurate, in view of the revolutionary developments in biology that have taken place during the century after Peirce's passing, as exemplified by the discovery of DNA and its double helical structure in 1953. He seems to have missed one of the most salient features of biology -- the genetic information, the result of biological evolution. I would think that any classification scheme of sciences and human knowledge that is based on conflating chemistry and biology would be incomplete at best. One possible classification scheme that is irreducibly triadic may be based on the trichotomy of eneryg, information, and gnergy (or the information-energy complementarity): (1) Energy science: physics, chemistry, etc. (2) Information science: mathematics, computer science, etc. (3) Gnergy science: life sciences, social sciences, spiritual science, etc. With all the best. Sung __________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Jeff, lists, > > As to why he considered biology basically physical, Peirce wrote: > > Biology might be regarded (although, as a matter of fact, no such > view is taken) as the chemistry of the albumoids and of the forms > they assume. It is probable that all the differences of races, > individuals, and tissues are chemical, at bottom. At any rate, the > possible varieties of albuminoids are amply sufficient to account > for all the diversity of organic forms. > [CP 1.195, "An Outline Classification of the Sciences" in _/Minute > Logic/_, 1903, http://www.textlog.de/4257.html ] > > Even all the differences among individuals! That includes humans. > > The difference between the physical and psychical wings in Peirce's view > of idioscopy comes down to a difference between the kinds of > _/observation/_ utilized by researchers, and that's why he calls them > _/subclasses/_: they differ by sub-kind of observation likewise as the > _/classes/_ mathematics, cenoscopy, idioscopy differ, said Peirce, most > basically by kind of observation. To get a third subclass of idioscopy, > one would need to trichotomize the sub-kinds of observation. That would > help explain his pointing to strange and dreamlike things as possibly > indicative of another mode of relations of things in time and space, > albeit fringy and unreliable because of weakness of animal powers to > grasp it. It could also involve some other mode of idioscopic > observation, for my part I've no idea what. > > It was silly of me to forget the relevance of Peirce's taxical system. I > myself did a whole table about it at the Wikipedia article > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_%28Peirce%29 . > > Peirce considered many factors in his classification system, constraints > or things like constraints whose interlocking would, I tend to believe > Peirce thought, increase the chance of his getting it right. > > Best, Ben > > On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > >> Ben, Lists, >> >> The quotes you've provided are helpful to me. I've not yet paid enough >> attention to his remarks about the differences between kingdom, phyla, >> class, order, family genus and species as these conceptions are >> applied to the classification of different sciences. >> >> Having said that, I was questioning the grounds of Peirce's division >> of the class of idioscopic sciences into the subclasses of physical >> and psychical. In the 20th century, the division between the physical >> sciences, life sciences, and the psychological and social sciences >> seems quite prevalent. >> >> --Jeff Jeff Downard >> Associate Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> NAU (o) 523-8354 >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: Benjamin Udell >> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:18 AM >> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: [biosemiotics:7722] Re: Peirce's classifications >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
