> On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Peirce similarly divided the physical sciences into nomological, > classificatory, and descriptive, and considered engineering to be a practical > science. > > CSP: Nomological physics discovers the ubiquitous phenomena of the physical > universe, formulates their laws, and measures their constants. It draws upon > metaphysics and upon mathematics for principles. Classificatory physics > describes and classifies physical forms and seeks to explain them by the laws > discovered by nomological physics with which it ultimately tends to coalesce. > Descriptive physics describes individual objects--the earth and the > heavens--endeavors to explain their phenomena by the principles of > nomological and classificatory physics, and tends ultimately itself to become > classificatory. (CP 1.188, 1903) > > He went on to suggest that physics proper is nomological, chemistry and > biology are classificatory, and geognosy and astronomy are descriptive (CP > 1.193-198; also CP 1.257-263, 1902).
I’ll confess that much of Peirce’s classification of the sciences never made much sense to me - if only because in practice anyone actually working in any field seemed to not fit the category. However the above type of classifications seem much more useful in that they are talking about aspects or modes one uses. As John noted these are always at play to varying degrees in any science.
----------------------------- 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 .
