Sung, lists,
Sung, if you read the thread carefully, you'll see that Peirce regards
even all differences between individuals as likely to be chemical (i.e.
neurophysiological differences would be chemical too), and holds that
the difference between the physical and psychical sciences is a
difference of **kinds of observation** by the researcher, and therefore
a difference of classes or subclasses of research, as Peirce defines the
taxa 'class' and 'subclass'.
On the difference between classes (and subclasses) and orders of
research, here's one of the links that I provided earlier today:
http://www.textlog.de/4261.html (CP 1.238, "A Detailed Classification of
the Sciences", Feb.-April 1902). On the difference between
physical-scientific and psychical-scientific observation, I now provide
the following quote:
http://www.textlog.de/4261.html from CP 1.242 ("A Detailed
Classification of the Sciences", Feb.-April 1902)
[....] Thus, a philologist may have a fine ear for language-sounds;
but it is by no means pure physical resemblance which determines
whether a given sound is or is not »the« Italian close *o*, for
example, as it is naïvely called: it is psychical habit. In any
simple physical sense the sounds not distinguished from that differ
much more from one another than almost any of them do from sounds
which would not be tolerated for »the« close *o*. So, this fine
phonetic observation of the linguist is a knack of understanding a
virtual convention. The two kinds of observation are different; but
they do not seem to be quite so different as both alike are from the
observation of the philosopher and the mathematician; and this is
why, though I, at first, was inclined to give each of them equal
rank with those classes, it has at length appeared certain that they
should be placed a little lower.
Hence, my earlier remark that, in Peircean terms, to trichotomize
idioscopy such that two of the departments are the physical and the
psychical, means trichotomize the sub-kinds of observation by
researchers in idioscopy.
Best, Ben
On 12/10/2014 3:39 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote
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 .
