Jerry LRC, Tommi, Gary F, and Kirsti, Jerry
Thanks for collecting and posting the references to Simons works. His views have changed hues since his book!
Yes. I'd say that the theoretical analysis in his 1987 book is still valid, but Simons got hit with a large dose of reality in his dozen years of consulting on engineering projects. I know some of the people who worked at Ontek, and they were always very supportive of both theory and practice -- and so was Peirce. Since applied ontology is the primary interest of Ontolog Forum, I wanted to emphasize those issues in my note. Tommi
My own current thought is that the main reason for Peirce's classification was to argue for those dotted lines in John's diagram, i.e. for dependencies between different studies, also that these dependencies form a partially hierarchical structure
Yes. There are two partial orders. The solid lines show how one science is more general (covers a broader range) than another. The dotted lines show dependencies (one science borrows or adopts principles from another). It's possible to emphasize either one. But there is a question whether phenomenology depends on mathematics. In CP 1.186, Peirce did not say that it does. In 1.417-421, he indicates that the perception of the phenomena does not depend on anything else, but he also suggests that mathematics is used in analyzing the phenomena. Therefore, I revised CSPsciences.jpg to draw the dotted line from mathematics to phenomenology to normative science. For CP 1.417-421, see http://www.textlog.de/4283.html . Gary
I think the issues raised by Tommi are of a similar sort, being based on dynamic tensions that resist any final resolution. But I think we agree that John’s diagram, by showing the dependencies within the broader divisions of the sciences, does contribute to the kind of dialogue we need for any “synthetic philosophy.”
Thanks for the note of support. Kirsti
Changing 'science' into 'knowledge' in CSPsciences jpg cannot be justified by current English dictionaries or other records of current use of the word 'science' in US or UK. In Finnish usage, for example, the word for 'sciences' includes human sciences, and philosophy.
That's also true of the German 'Wissenschaft'. Since Peirce knew German very well, he was probably thinking of the German sense. But the current English usage has changed. One reason why I chose the word 'knowledge' is that it's a direct translation of the Latin 'scientia'. John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
