John, Frances, I am puzzled. Speculative rhetoric the first branch of non-mathematical logic is an alias for semiotics. There is no reason at all to look elsewhere in the classification of the science.
Auke -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John F Sowa <[email protected]> Verzonden: maandag 10 september 2018 6:03 Aan: [email protected]; 'Peirce-L' <[email protected]> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] How should semeiotic be classified among the sciences? On 9/9/2018 9:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: > 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. Yes. That's what Peirce said in his 1903 classification, which I used for the CSPsemiotic.jpg diagram (attached). Note that formal logic is under mathematics, and logic is also the third of the normative sciences, as Peirce said. > The curiosity here might be whether semiotics as a science should be > somewhat separated from logics Yes. Peirce said that logic was a branch of semiotic, but he also said that a broader conception of logic would make it identical with semiotic. > 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 Yes. That would justify putting Semiotic under Phenomenology, as in CSPsemiotic.jpg. > 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. Yes. 1903 is the year that Peirce began his correspondence with Lady Welby. During the following decade, he wrote a great deal more about the trichotomic structure. But the currently available manuscripts don't mention how that structure might affect his 1903 classification. Unless and until more MSS are found with new information, the 1903 version be the framework into which we could include semiotic. 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 [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 .
