Edwina, Jerry R, Jon AS, and Jerry LRC,
Peirce answered your questions. I like his 1903 *outline* because
it's a clean and simple summary of everything he wrote about the
sciences and their interrelationships. But as an outline, it omits
nearly all the details.
ET
I wonder if this list will ever move beyond debates [and again, I
consider them debates and not discussions] about classification
and terminology
I definitely do not want to debate. I consider this thread as a
*collaborative inquiry* in trying to understand what Peirce said
and fill in the gaps. My only goal is to get a clear understanding
of that outline and its relationship to all of Peirce's writings.
That classification has some very important implications for biology,
but I'll have to address that separately because it requires more space.
JR
From what I’ve read, biosemiotic suffers from not being a formal theory
at all. Rather, it is a science (?) that is still seeking to understand
itself.
I agree. But I'll repeat the diagram in CSPsemiotic.jpg. Note that
mathematics includes all possible theories about anything. Every
theory, formal or informal, in every branch of philosophy and empirical
science is an application of some theory of mathematics.
JR
my question was about biosemiotic, which has a perspective that is
different from semiotic because of its special focus on living
systems (biology, hence biosemiotic).
Semiotic also has a focus on living systems: human beings. Peirce
himself talked about extensions to parrots, dogs, bees, and crystals.
JR
I don’t treat bacteria as a quasi-mind.
The biologist Lynn Margulis, who spent her career studying bacteria,
considered bacteria on a continuum with all higher life forms:
The growth, reproduction, and communication of these moving, alliance-
forming bacteria become isomorphic with our thought, with our happiness,
our sensitivities and stimulations.
Given what Peirce wrote, I believe that he would agree. My only
correction would replace the word 'isomorphic' (equal form) with
'homomorphic' (similar form). This quotation comes from
https://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/n-Ch.7.html
At the end of that article are various comments by prominent
researchers in biology and related fields. They're helpful
for understanding Lynn M's contributions.
JAS
The other two--quality and brute reaction--are not Signs themselves,
and cannot be reduced to Signs
I agree. I thanked Gary F. for finding a quotation by Peirce
that clarified that issue.
JAS
Peirce repeatedly made it very clear that he considered Logic as
Semeiotic to be a Normative Science, not a branch of phenomenology.
No. He explicitly said that logic is a branch of mathematics.
As mathematics, it is applicable to every science without exception.
But most sciences, including phenomenology, do not make value judgments.
Under normative science, he explictly said that it is a "partial and
narrow" point of view. See CP 1.573.
Fundamental principle, which Peirce said many times in many ways:
Mathematics and logic are the foundation every science without
exception. In *every* science, logic is used in the broad sense.
But normative science is an exception: it's used in a narrow sense.
JLRC
Semantics alone is merely philosophy abused.
Mathematics alone is not even logic.
I don't know how you define those terms. What I've been trying to do
is to summarize Peirce's classification of the sciences as accurately
as possible. If you can find any quotations by Peirce that support
those two points, please let us know.
JLRC
CSP focused on language as a path of syntaxies to arguments that
illuminated the natural groundings of human communication in an
extraordinary wide sense.
I agree. He said that linguistics was the best developed of all
the psychic sciences. That would probably imply that all the
other psychic sciences depend on linguistics. But that does not
negate his point that all sciences, including linguistics, depend
on math and logic.
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 the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
