Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Gary R.:

GR: I'm curious if you know of anything anywhere as extensive as this
written by Peirce on the Science of Review.


No, but Alessandro Topa provides a thorough compilation and analysis of
what Peirce *did *say about the science of review in a 2019
*Transactions *article
(https://doi.org/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.55.3.04).

Regards,

Jon S.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:13 PM Gary Richmond 
wrote:

> Jon, List,
>
> JAS: Actually, [Peirce] 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 would be very interested in reading your transcription and, so, will
> write you off List next week to remind you to send it to me (I'm having a
> medical procedure towards the end of the week and may find it difficult to
> concentrate over the next few days).
>
> I'm curious if you know of anything anywhere as extensive as this written
> by Peirce on the Science of Review.
>
> 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*
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 
>> 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] .
>>> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[Gary Richmond]

Jon, List,

JAS: Actually, [Peirce] 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 would be very interested in reading your transcription and, so, will
write you off List next week to remind you to send it to me (I'm having a
medical procedure towards the end of the week and may find it difficult to
concentrate over the next few days).

I'm curious if you know of anything anywhere as extensive as this written
by Peirce on the Science of Review.

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*







On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:12 PM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> 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 
> 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] .
>> 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.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

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 
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] .  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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[Gary Richmond]

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] .  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*







On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:01 AM Jon Alan Schmidt 
wrote:

> Robert, List:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:06 AM robert marty 
> wrote:
>
>> Gary R., List
>>
>>
>>
>> Your opinion that De Tienne :
>>
>>
>>
>> *"**emphasizes in that aspect of his presentation having the purpose of
>> positioning phaneroscopy within Peirce's Classification of Sciences, a
>> work, btw, of Science of Review, concerned with
>> sciences qua scientific disciplines as distinct from how the knowledge of
>> each of these will be employed in the actual work of any given scientist or
>> group of sciences*.*"*
>>
>>
>>
>> seems to me very appropriate; indeed, it completely changes the nature of
>> the debate by discarding the conflict because:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"By "science of review" is meant the business of those who occupy
>> themselves with arranging the results of discovery, beginning with digests,
>> and going on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science*."(CP 1.182, AN
>> OUTLINE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES)
>>
>>
>> By placing the activity of the phaneroscopists in this branch of the
>> Classification of Sciences, it not depends directly on the Sciences of
>> Discovery and one understands better than the insistence of De Tiennne to
>> distance himself from Mathematics. For the "phaneroscopists" would draw
>> "the results of discovery,"* without having the responsibility of their
>> elaboration* and would import them among the Sciences of Review, in
>> which they would assume a necessary work "beginning with digests, and going
>> on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science". A critical work quite
>> indispensable.
>>
>> For Peirce, classifications are general, that nobody is enclosed in a
>> branch and that each can deploy his activity by passing from one to another
>> if he has the desire and the competence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Robert Marty
>> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
>> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[robert marty]

Jon Alan, List

"No one" ... I don't know since it was not Gary R. who spoke; but anyway,
from now on, there will be at least one, because I am ready to adopt it ...
and maybe we should ask ADT what he thinks ...

 Regards,
Robert Marty



Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le mar. 31 août 2021 à 15:01, Jon Alan Schmidt  a
écrit :

> Robert, List:
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:06 AM robert marty 
> wrote:
>
>> Gary R., List
>>
>>
>>
>> Your opinion that De Tienne :
>>
>>
>>
>> *"**emphasizes in that aspect of his presentation having the purpose of
>> positioning phaneroscopy within Peirce's Classification of Sciences, a
>> work, btw, of Science of Review, concerned with
>> sciences qua scientific disciplines as distinct from how the knowledge of
>> each of these will be employed in the actual work of any given scientist or
>> group of sciences*.*"*
>>
>>
>>
>> seems to me very appropriate; indeed, it completely changes the nature of
>> the debate by discarding the conflict because:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"By "science of review" is meant the business of those who occupy
>> themselves with arranging the results of discovery, beginning with digests,
>> and going on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science*."(CP 1.182, AN
>> OUTLINE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES)
>>
>>
>> By placing the activity of the phaneroscopists in this branch of the
>> Classification of Sciences, it not depends directly on the Sciences of
>> Discovery and one understands better than the insistence of De Tiennne to
>> distance himself from Mathematics. For the "phaneroscopists" would draw
>> "the results of discovery,"* without having the responsibility of their
>> elaboration* and would import them among the Sciences of Review, in
>> which they would assume a necessary work "beginning with digests, and going
>> on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science". A critical work quite
>> indispensable.
>>
>> For Peirce, classifications are general, that nobody is enclosed in a
>> branch and that each can deploy his activity by passing from one to another
>> if he has the desire and the competence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Robert Marty
>> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
>> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
>> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Robert, List:

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.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:06 AM robert marty 
wrote:

> Gary R., List
>
>
>
> Your opinion that De Tienne :
>
>
>
> *"**emphasizes in that aspect of his presentation having the purpose of
> positioning phaneroscopy within Peirce's Classification of Sciences, a
> work, btw, of Science of Review, concerned with
> sciences qua scientific disciplines as distinct from how the knowledge of
> each of these will be employed in the actual work of any given scientist or
> group of sciences*.*"*
>
>
>
> seems to me very appropriate; indeed, it completely changes the nature of
> the debate by discarding the conflict because:
>
>
>
> *"By "science of review" is meant the business of those who occupy
> themselves with arranging the results of discovery, beginning with digests,
> and going on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science*."(CP 1.182, AN
> OUTLINE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES)
>
>
> By placing the activity of the phaneroscopists in this branch of the
> Classification of Sciences, it not depends directly on the Sciences of
> Discovery and one understands better than the insistence of De Tiennne to
> distance himself from Mathematics. For the "phaneroscopists" would draw
> "the results of discovery,"* without having the responsibility of their
> elaboration* and would import them among the Sciences of Review, in which
> they would assume a necessary work "beginning with digests, and going on to
> endeavor to form a philosophy of science". A critical work quite
> indispensable.
>
> For Peirce, classifications are general, that nobody is enclosed in a
> branch and that each can deploy his activity by passing from one to another
> if he has the desire and the competence.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Robert Marty
> Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
> *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[robert marty]

Gary R., List



Your opinion that De Tienne :



*"**emphasizes in that aspect of his presentation having the purpose of
positioning phaneroscopy within Peirce's Classification of Sciences, a
work, btw, of Science of Review, concerned with
sciences qua scientific disciplines as distinct from how the knowledge of
each of these will be employed in the actual work of any given scientist or
group of sciences*.*"*



seems to me very appropriate; indeed, it completely changes the nature of
the debate by discarding the conflict because:



*"By "science of review" is meant the business of those who occupy
themselves with arranging the results of discovery, beginning with digests,
and going on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science*."(CP 1.182, AN
OUTLINE CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES)


By placing the activity of the phaneroscopists in this branch of the
Classification of Sciences, it not depends directly on the Sciences of
Discovery and one understands better than the insistence of De Tiennne to
distance himself from Mathematics. For the "phaneroscopists" would draw
"the results of discovery,"* without having the responsibility of their
elaboration* and would import them among the Sciences of Review, in which
they would assume a necessary work "beginning with digests, and going on to
endeavor to form a philosophy of science". A critical work quite
indispensable.

For Peirce, classifications are general, that nobody is enclosed in a
branch and that each can deploy his activity by passing from one to another
if he has the desire and the competence.



Sincerely,

Robert Marty
Honorary Professor; Ph.D. Mathematics; Ph.D. Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le mar. 31 août 2021 à 04:49, Gary Richmond  a
écrit :

> John, Jon, Gary F, Edwina, List,
>
> I don't believe that it is in any way controversial that not only Peirce,
> but virtually every serious scholar makes a distinction between theory and
> practice and, likewise, between pure and applied mathematics.
>
> Here I'd like to comment on the later distinction (i.e., between pure and
> applied mathematics); but rather than offering abstract definitions of
> these, to emphasize the legitimate interest of many folk on this list in
> the importance of real world applications of mathematics and science,
> I'll instead quote from a college website commenting on how pure and
> applied mathematics are distinguished in their undergraduate degree
> programs. These simple summaries are meant to help students decide which
> major (pure or applied mathematics) to enroll in.
>
> Edwin Ding, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Mathematics,
> Physics, and Statistics at APU, noted that the mathematics major focuses on
> pure mathematics. He explained that pure mathematics deals with the
> theoretical side of math and has a greater concentration on proofs,
> theorems, and abstract concepts.
>
> “The applied math major, on the other hand, focuses more on applying
> analytical/computational math techniques to solve real-world problems in
> different fields,” said Ding. These fields can include actuarial science,
> biology, physics, computer science, and statistics. According to Ding,
> “Both majors start with the foundational courses, such as calculus sequence
> and ordinary differential equations, and go into different specializations
> later on.”
> https://www.apu.edu/articles/the-difference-between-mathematics-degrees-applied-math-vs-pure-math/
>
>
> What it seems to me that De Tienne emphasizes in that aspect of his
> presentation having the purpose of positioning pharneroscopy within
> Peirce's *Classification of Sciences*, a work, btw, of *Science of Review*,
> concerned with sciences *qua* scientific *disciplines *as distinct from
> how the knowledge of each of these will be employed in the actual work of
> any given scientist or group of sciences.
>
> So, if one wants to prepare for work in, for example, biology, a student
> would most likely want to have and, indeed, need to have some training in
> several sciences in addition to biology, for example, in mathematics,
> logic, chemistry, etc. But her more advanced training would *emphasize* the
> distinctive research characters (methodology) of the science of biology, a
> science which she may have a burning interest in which may eventually lead
> to her making important discoveries in it.
>
> As I see it, Peirce's *Classification of Sciences* is principally
> devised  to point to the specific *subject matter* of individual sciences
> as they have already been developed, but equally importantly, may be
> developed, and will be researched by generations of future scientists with
> special interests in particular sciences*. Of* course these interests and
> abilities may not be limited to a single science, may even encompass many
> sciences (Peirce was himself certainly an authentic polymath). And while
> preparatory 

[PEIRCE-L] The Classification of Sciences and Scientific Research, was Pure math & phenomenology (was Slip & Slide

[Gary Richmond]

John, Jon, Gary F, Edwina, List,

I don't believe that it is in any way controversial that not only Peirce,
but virtually every serious scholar makes a distinction between theory and
practice and, likewise, between pure and applied mathematics.

Here I'd like to comment on the later distinction (i.e., between pure and
applied mathematics); but rather than offering abstract definitions of
these, to emphasize the legitimate interest of many folk on this list in
the importance of real world applications of mathematics and science,
I'll instead quote from a college website commenting on how pure and
applied mathematics are distinguished in their undergraduate degree
programs. These simple summaries are meant to help students decide which
major (pure or applied mathematics) to enroll in.

Edwin Ding, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Mathematics,
Physics, and Statistics at APU, noted that the mathematics major focuses on
pure mathematics. He explained that pure mathematics deals with the
theoretical side of math and has a greater concentration on proofs,
theorems, and abstract concepts.

“The applied math major, on the other hand, focuses more on applying
analytical/computational math techniques to solve real-world problems in
different fields,” said Ding. These fields can include actuarial science,
biology, physics, computer science, and statistics. According to Ding,
“Both majors start with the foundational courses, such as calculus sequence
and ordinary differential equations, and go into different specializations
later on.”
https://www.apu.edu/articles/the-difference-between-mathematics-degrees-applied-math-vs-pure-math/


What it seems to me that De Tienne emphasizes in that aspect of his
presentation having the purpose of positioning pharneroscopy within
Peirce's *Classification of Sciences*, a work, btw, of *Science of Review*,
concerned with sciences *qua* scientific *disciplines *as distinct from how
the knowledge of each of these will be employed in the actual work of any
given scientist or group of sciences.

So, if one wants to prepare for work in, for example, biology, a student
would most likely want to have and, indeed, need to have some training in
several sciences in addition to biology, for example, in mathematics,
logic, chemistry, etc. But her more advanced training would *emphasize* the
distinctive research characters (methodology) of the science of biology, a
science which she may have a burning interest in which may eventually lead
to her making important discoveries in it.

As I see it, Peirce's *Classification of Sciences* is principally devised
to point to the specific *subject matter* of individual sciences as they
have already been developed, but equally importantly, may be developed, and
will be researched by generations of future scientists with special
interests in particular sciences*. Of* course these interests and abilities
may not be limited to a single science, may even encompass many sciences
(Peirce was himself certainly an authentic polymath). And while preparatory
studies for one to become, say, a chemist or a psychologist may overlap to
some (small) extent, yet as their individual educations broaden and deepen,
their scientific training and, of course, ultimately their scientific
practice, *will diverge* considerably. Naturally it is not unheard of for,
say, an accomplished botanist to also be an expert anthropologist. But if
so, that scientist must make deep and serious studies of both those
sciences, and likely much, much more.

It is likely that programs in any scientific discipline will most likely
require students to take courses in mathematics and logic, perhaps the
history of science, etc. But once they are actively working in their
special fields, if they continue as research scientists they will likely
want to make significant progress in their respective field(s), to
"further" them, as the English idiom would have it. For, as Peirce comments:


Science is not a fixed, unchangeable body of propositions. After a thousand
years the general face of science may be modified past recognition. 1899 | From
Comte to Benjamin Kidd | CN 2:214

Thus, science "consists in a *disposition* of living men" and women
actively working in various scientific disciplines, genuine science being the
work and research of those trained in and engaged in the various scientific
disciplines.

CSP: Science is research; and research is science, from the first moment
when the researcher casts aside all desire to prove his present opinions
right, and burns with ardent desire to find out wherein they are wrong. Science
thus consists in a disposition of living men. . .


Peirce continues in this passage to note that for contemporary,  active,
*developing* research that "the true divisions of science will be those
which divide living men.: 1902 | Minute Logic: Chapter II. Prelogical
Notions. Section I. Classification of the Sciences | MS [R] 426:12

Thus, he brings together these