Frances to John and other interested listers--- In posting a revised tree diagram on a classification of the sciences you seem to be positing in your guess some frustration over its original realist framework, along with some irritation on where to locate a wider science of semiotics as a theory of signs that holds more than only symbols.
In his later classification of the sciences Peirce seemingly located formal logics under the mathematical sciences, but he also located critical logics and normal logics as separate normative sciences under the philosophical sciences. The curiosity here might be whether semiotics as a science should be somewhat separated from logics altogether, but as a proto kind of quasi logics and thus where should semiotics then fall within a classification of the sciences. As an exacted foundational theory, semiotics would likely be well classified with formal logics under mathematics, but when fielded in other ways as an alternate study then semiotics is also a defined referential science and an applied instrumental science, so that semiotics aside from being a formal and normal sort of logics might be best located somewhere under phenomenology within the philosophical sciences. Semiotics after all is a vast study of senses and signs and systems, which breadth seems far beyond the depth of symbolic and algebraic logics, even given logics own necessary importance in mathematics and philosophics. Any pragmatist classification of the sciences should of course be architectonically consistent with the trichotomic structure of the phenomenal categories. This seems to be an initial task that has yet to be fully done, even before the location of an independent or isolated mathics and logics and semics within that completed structure. My muse is that a newly revised classification of the sciences but along Peircean lines is indeed possible. John wrote in my compacted paragraph: In his 1903 classification of the sciences (CP 1.180-202) Peirce classified formal logic under mathematics, but he also classified logic as a normative science. Question: Where is semeiotic? As a formal theory, it would be classified with formal logic under mathematics. But semeiotic is also an applied science when it is used in perception, action, communication. When I drew a diagram to illustrate Peirce's classification, I did not include semeiotic because he had not mentioned it. But since it is a science, it belongs somewhere in that diagram. Where? I believe that it belongs directly under phenomenology, since every perception involves signs. See the attached CSPsemiotic.jpg. Does anyone have any comments?
----------------------------- 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 .
