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
Phyllis, List,
First of all, Phyllis, welcome back to the List! I know a little of the
health challenges you've been facing since 2014 when you asked me to read
your paper for the Peirce International Centennial Conference, so I am more
than delighted to see you back, active again on Peirce-L.
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
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
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
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
Jon A,
Thank you for emphasizing the need to consider and
analyze concrete examples. I have often mentioned Peirce's book,
Photometric Researches, as a textbook example of how to do
phaneroscopy, methodeutic, and all subsequent steps to produce an
important contribution to science.
But many
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
Phenomenology is (with math) the underpinning of both scientific inquiry
and everyday reasoning. Improve one's capability for observation and
classification and you improve his/her ability to think and reason.
Neglected Argument has interesting things to say about the categories and
this process
Robert, Phyllis, Jon A., List:
I agree with Robert's caveat, although he once again cites Peirce's very
early (c. 1894-1896) classification, which completely omits the
*distinct *science
that he later calls "phenomenology" and then "phaneroscopy." After all, the
task of *every *scientist in
Without forgetting that they classify their observations "with the purpose
of identifying their forms with those mathematics has studied, " ( [C.S.
Peirce, 1976: NEM, vol III.2 1122], MS 1345) otherwise there would be only
empirical sciences, and we would still be at the physics of Aristotle and
Thank you for this. Peirce said that the task of the phenomenologist is to
observe and to classify observations. This is a good example of that.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 8:30 AM Jon Awbrey wrote:
> All,
>
> Continuing with our Phenomenological∫Phaneroscopic survey of
> colleges and their course
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, List
Thank you so much for this post. I so very much agree with you - how
I wish that some people would move, out of the safe sophistry of the
seminar room, as I call it, and into the real world - where the
All,
Continuing with our Phenomenological∫Phaneroscopic survey of
colleges and their course catalogues, let's take up the sample
Gary R. supplied and see how Phenomenology is manifested there.
Searching the Azusa Pacific University site on “Phenomenology” I get exactly
one hit:
•
All,
Returning to the question I asked last time —
Why Phenomenology∫Phaneroscopy should fail of consensual,
or even more than fringe recognition as a separate science,
such as would be reflected in conventional college course
catalogues, among other places which canonize disciplines?
What it
Thank you, Robert, for your additional clarifications. Together,
you and Gary have stirred me from my dogmatic slumbers and I see
there really is something of significance to this new science of
Phenomenology∫Phaneroscopy, at least, now that we have a working
definition of it as “a science which
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,
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
Thanks, Gary, that is a very nice summary.
We must note, however, when it comes to this conventional sort
of “college cataloque” survey of the Sciences, Phenomenology,
much less Phaneroscopy, is nowhere recognized as a Science
in that sense. It is at most a topic in Philosophy courses,
but when
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
