Gary R., List: GR: ... *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) ...
Actually, he wrote a long manuscript on the subject--over 18,000 words--intended as a chapter of *Minute Logic* and entitled, "Of the Classification of the Sciences. Second Paper. Of the Practical Sciences" (R 1343, 1902). I transcribed it a few years ago, and anyone interested in reading it is welcome to send me an e-mail off-List. Peirce begins with a classification of human instincts, which then serves as the basis for his classification of the practical sciences. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 4:25 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> 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.
