Dear Gary,
I think the problem here — I cannot speak for what Peirce had in mind —
but for the way De Tienne trails the phanerscopic serpent over everything —
is that the sciences of review and thus the classification of the sciences
falls under the “science” of phaneroscopy.
Now a recursive thinker like myself does not consider that hopelessly
regressive,
but it does require one to tread rather carefully ...
http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/stepcarefully.gif
Regards,
Jon
On 9/1/2021 5:24 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:> Robert, Jon, List:
JAS: No one is suggesting that *phaneroscopy *falls within the sciences of
review, Gary R. is simply noting that
*Peirce's classification of the sciences* is a work of the sciences of review.
Within that classification in its
mature form, phaneroscopy is the first positive science, situated between
mathematics and the normative sciences.
That is in my view essentially correct. Yet in a certain sense the phrase,
"*Classification of the Sciences" *isn't
quite accurate even though it's Peirce's own. I say this because Peirce divides
the totality of *Science* into
three grand groups, namely, *Sciences of Discovery* (the theoretical science
which he outlines in his familiar
"*classification of the sciences*"), *Practical Sciences* (what we today refer
to as applied arts and sciences,
which Peirce holds to be far too many to even list so that he never offers any
more than just a few diverse
examples of them), and *Science of Review* (which includes such outlines as his classifications of the sciences of
discovery as well as less broad classifications as his classification of signs within logic as semeiotic,
philosophy of science, etc.)
In his classification, Peirce introduces a overarching tripartite division
between three branches of science:
science of discovery. . .; science of review, which encompasses any science classification, as well as history of
science (*EP2*, 258–259; 458); and practical science or science “for the uses of life” (*CP* 1.239), for example,
“pedagogics, […] vulgar arithmetic, horology, surveying, navigation, […]
librarian’s work” (*CP* 1.243) [12]
<https://www.isko.org/cyclo/peirce#e12>. Although Peirce’s classification
focuses mostly on sciences of the first
branch, the fact that the two last branches are included may give pause to
reflect on their significance for the
classification as a whole. https://www.isko.org/cyclo/peirce
I agree with Torjus Midtgarden that there being three 'grand sciences' (or
three grand branches of science) ought
to give us "pause to reflect on their significance for the classification as a
whole.
Best,
Gary R
“Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is
final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke
*Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University
of New York*
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
