RE: [PEIRCE-L] Broadening Phaneroscopy (was Critical analysis ofBelluci's paper)
John, your post advocating a narrow view of phaneroscopy is based on the
claim that identification = assessment = evaluation. That strikes me as an
extraordinary claim. Can you offer any basis for it in formal logic?
Gary f.
} Love truth, but pardon error. [Voltaire] {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 2-Oct-21 20:53
To: Peirce-L
Subject: re: [PEIRCE-L] Broadening Phaneroscopy (was Critical analysis
ofBelluci's paper)
Jon AS, List,
That kind of broadening is essential to go beyond a science egg to a science
that can develop useful results. But as soon as it includes methods of
evaluation, it begins to include normative science. In that case,it goes
beyond what Peirce called phaneroscopy. In fact, it becomes the science of
semeiotic.
JAS: Atkins likely includes the "broadening" of phaneroscopy as discussed
in these two papers in his subsequent book. I read it a couple of years ago
and may need to revisit it now. I already mentioned his comments about the
method of phaneroscopy going beyond just inspection and description to
include analysis and assessment. He also notes, as you [GF] do, that the aim
of phaneroscopy is to identify not only the universal/formal categories, but
also the particular/material categories.
Any kind of assessment implies criteria for doing the assessment
(evaluation). All values depend on normative principles.
JAS: Atkins ultimately proposes that phaneroscopy should likewise have three
branches, calling them "General Categorics," "Internal Phaneroscopy," and
"External Phaneroscopy" (p. 110). Overall, his hope in writing all this and
more about phaneroscopy is "to develop it from the condition of a
science-egg to an embrio-science" (p. 112).
I agree with Atkins that assessment or evaluation is necessary for any
useful science. But evaluation or assessment requires values. That
immediately crosses the boundary between phaneroscopy and the normative
sciences. The science that Atkins is talking about is more properly called
semeiotic.
In fact, Peirce failed to mention one very important science in his 1903
classification: semeiotic. To complete his classification, define two main
branches of philosophy: Semeiotic and Mtetaphysics. Then specify two
branches of Semeiotc: Phaneroscopy and Normative Science.
With this classification, semeiotic is a full-fledged science, but the
branches under it, by themselves, are eggs or embryos. I suspect that
Atkins was taking steps in that direction, but his names do not recognize
the need for normative science in any attempt to broaden phaneroscopy.
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 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] Broadening Phaneroscopy (was Critical analysis ofBelluci's paper)
John, List: JFS: But as soon as it includes methods of evaluation, it begins to include normative science. Pure mathematics includes methods of evaluation, yet surely we agree that it *does not* begin to include normative science. Pure mathematics does not evaluate whether any of its hypotheses correspond to reality, only whether a particular conclusion drawn from them is consistent with those hypotheses. Likewise, phaneroscopy does not evaluate whether anything encountered in the phaneron corresponds to reality, only whether a particular description and analysis thereof are consistent with whatever is or could be present to the mind. As Peirce says, "The reader, upon his side, must repeat the author’s observations for himself, and decide from his own observations whether the author’s account of the appearances is correct or not” (CP 1.287, 1904). This is phaneroscopy, not normative science. JFS: In fact, Peirce failed to mention one very important science in his 1903 classification: semeiotic. He does not mention the *word*, but he certainly includes *what it designates* as the normative science of logic, defining it as "the science of the general laws of signs" and identifying its three branches as speculative grammar, critic, and methodeutic (CP 1.191, EP 2:260, 1903). JFS: Then specify two branches of Semeiotc: Phaneroscopy and Normative Science. This makes no sense at all. Phaneroscopy, esthetics, and ethics do not study signs *as signs*, so they are not branches of semeiotic any more than pure mathematics is. On the contrary, these are all *other *sciences on which semeiotic *depends *for principles. Those who practice phaneroscopy, esthetics, and ethics obviously *use *signs, just like those who practice pure mathematics. Atkins explains this by invoking the distinction "between object languages and meta-languages, between logic and meta-logic, between mathematics and metamathematics." RKA: Similarly, when we analyze the phaneron, we do so in a meta-language that already presupposes we understand a variety of concepts and logical expressions. We must distinguish the meta-language in which we demonstrate claims about the phaneron from our descriptions of the phaneron itself. In phaneroscopic analysis, the object of analysis is the phaneron and our observations or descriptions of it. However, the language in which the analysis is conducted is a meta-language that involves a variety of semiotic presuppositions. Those semiotic presuppositions constitute a meta-theoretic framework in which we can accomplish phaneroscopic analyses. (Part Two, p. 104) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 7:53 PM sowa @bestweb.net wrote: > Jon AS, List, > > That kind of broadening is essential to go beyond a science egg to a > science that can develop useful results. But as soon as it includes > methods of evaluation, it begins to include normative science. In that > case,it goes beyond what Peirce called phaneroscopy. In fact, it becomes > the science of semeiotic. > > JAS: Atkins likely includes the "broadening" of phaneroscopy as discussed > in these two papers in his subsequent book. I read it a couple of years ago > and may need to revisit it now. I already mentioned his comments about the > *method > *of phaneroscopy going beyond just inspection and description to include > analysis and assessment. He also notes, as you [GF] do, that the *aim *of > phaneroscopy is to identify not only the universal/formal categories, but > also the particular/material categories. > > Any kind of assessment implies criteria for doing the assessment > (evaluation). All values depend on normative principles. > > JAS: Atkins ultimately proposes that phaneroscopy should likewise have > three branches, calling them "General Categorics," "Internal Phaneroscopy," > and "External Phaneroscopy" (p. 110). Overall, his hope in writing all this > and more about phaneroscopy is "to develop it from the condition of a > science-egg to an embrio-science" (p. 112). > > I agree with Atkins that assessment or evaluation is necessary for any > useful science. But evaluation or assessment requires values. That > immediately crosses the boundary between phaneroscopy and the normative > sciences. The science that Atkins is talking about is more properly called > semeiotic. > > In fact, Peirce failed to mention one very important science in his 1903 > classification: semeiotic. To complete his classification, define two > main branches of philosophy: Semeiotic and Mtetaphysics. Then specify two > branches of Semeiotc: Phaneroscopy and Normative Science. > > With this classification, semeiotic is a full-fledged science, but the > branches under it, by themselves, are eggs or embryos. I suspect that > Atkins was taking steps in that direction, but his names do not
re: [PEIRCE-L] Broadening Phaneroscopy (was Critical analysis ofBelluci's paper)
Jon AS, List, That kind of broadening is essential to go beyond a science egg to a science that can develop useful results. But as soon as it includes methods of evaluation, it begins to include normative science. In that case,it goes beyond what Peirce called phaneroscopy. In fact, it becomes the science of semeiotic. JAS: Atkins likely includes the "broadening" of phaneroscopy as discussed in these two papers in his subsequent book. I read it a couple of years ago and may need to revisit it now. I already mentioned his comments about the method of phaneroscopy going beyond just inspection and description to include analysis and assessment. He also notes, as you [GF] do, that the aim of phaneroscopy is to identify not only the universal/formal categories, but also the particular/material categories. Any kind of assessment implies criteria for doing the assessment (evaluation). All values depend on normative principles. JAS: Atkins ultimately proposes that phaneroscopy should likewise have three branches, calling them "General Categorics," "Internal Phaneroscopy," and "External Phaneroscopy" (p. 110). Overall, his hope in writing all this and more about phaneroscopy is "to develop it from the condition of a science-egg to an embrio-science" (p. 112). I agree with Atkins that assessment or evaluation is necessary for any useful science. But evaluation or assessment requires values. That immediately crosses the boundary between phaneroscopy and the normative sciences. The science that Atkins is talking about is more properly called semeiotic. In fact, Peirce failed to mention one very important science in his 1903 classification: semeiotic. To complete his classification, define two main branches of philosophy: Semeiotic and Mtetaphysics. Then specify two branches of Semeiotc: Phaneroscopy and Normative Science. With this classification, semeiotic is a full-fledged science, but the branches under it, by themselves, are eggs or embryos. I suspect that Atkins was taking steps in that direction, but his names do not recognize the need for normative science in any attempt to broaden phaneroscopy. 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 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.
