Tommi, List:
Your post bring to the front (at least for me) a central problem of philosophy,
especially of synthetic philosophy in contrast to retrospective philosophy. EP
2:372.
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Tommi Vehkavaara <tommi.vehkava...@uta.fi> wrote:
>
>
> CP 1.232 "Now if we are to classify the sciences, it is highly desirable that
> we should begin with a definite notion of what we mean by a science; and in
> view of what has been said of natural classification, it is plainly important
> that our notion of science should be a notion of science as it lives and not
> a mere abstract definition….
> The best translation of {epistémé} is "comprehension." It is the ability to
> define a thing in such a manner that all its properties shall be corollaries
> from its definition." (From "Minute logic", 1902)
>
> Similar division of different senses of the term "science" can be found also
> in EP 2:372 (1906).
The challenge, at least to me, is to reconcile the classification of the
sciences today, in light of EP 2 : 373.
During the past century, the methodologies of the sciences have spanned the gap
between the quali - signs of atoms and molecules and macroscopic reality, such
as the use of MRI to illuminate the interior processes of the human body. The
logic of scaling between electrical phenomena (such as MRI data) and human
health experience is often possible now. Thus, the synthetic philosophy of
science has integrated our comprehension of knowledge within an amplitive logic
that copulates concepts from multiple special sciences (ideoscopy).
This leads me to the question:
What is now a pragmatic classification of the sciences that is consistent with
synthetic philosophy?
Or, are nearly all CSP scholars satisfied with the simplistic notions of
retrospective sciences that have been trimmed to fit the Procrustean bed of
mathematical predicate logic?
It appears to me that synthetic philosophy absolutely requires a Tarskian
approach to the copulation of the meta-languages such that the sciences can be
integrated (as the example of the role of MRI in medicine indicates.)
Your thoughts, Tommi?
Cheers
Jerry
-----------------------------
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
