Jon, John, List, JFS wrote: "the flow of ideas and inspirations for the scientists themselves can flow in either direction," that is, from sciences higher or lower in Peirce's *Classification of Sciences*.
Summarizing Jon's "candidate passages [which yet] do not quite match John Sowa's paraphrase" of the flow from lower to higher sciences in the Classification, we get: CSP: . . . each science draws regulating principles from those superior to it in abstractness, while drawing *data for its inductions* from the sciences inferior to it in abstractness. . . (CP 3.427, 1896) CSP: . . . each science may largely rest for its principles upon those above it in the scale while drawing its *data *in part from those below it. (EP 2:35, 1898) CSP: . . . each science ought to make appeal, for its general principles, exclusively to the sciences placed above it, while for *instances *and* special facts*, it will find the sciences below it more serviceable. (RL 107, 1904) CSP: . . that which places above any given science those which lend it principles, and places below it those which lend it *new applications*. (EP 2:458, 1909) So (as a super-summary), according to Peirce, sciences lower in the *Classification of Sciences* can offer to those higher in it "data," more specifically, "data for its inductions," "instances and special facts," and "new applications." That's it; at least from the theoretical standpoint as Peirce sees it (I think in one place he also offers "examples" and "cases"). All this makes good sense to me. Meanwhile, clearly, individual scientists can and will do as they please regarding "the flow of ideas and inspirations" in either direction (JFS). That seems to me quite healthy for science generally. 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 Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 8:21 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here are a few candidate passages that I have come across, although they > are not from 1903 and do not quite match John Sowa's paraphrase. > > CSP: This double assertion, first, that logic ought to draw upon > mathematics for control of disputed principles, and second that ontological > philosophy ought in like manner to draw upon logic, is a case under a > general assertion which was made by Auguste Comte, namely, that the > sciences may be arranged in a series with reference to the abstractness of > their objects; and that each science draws regulating principles from those > superior to it in abstractness, while drawing data for its inductions from > the sciences inferior to it in abstractness. So far as the sciences can be > arranged in such a scale, these relationships must hold good. (CP 3.427, > 1896) > > CSP: I would classify the sciences upon the general principle set forth by > Auguste Comte, that is, in the order of abstractness of their objects, so > that each science may largely rest for its principles upon those above it > in the scale while drawing its data in part from those below it. (EP 2:35, > 1898) > > CSP: This classification (which has been worked out in minute detail) is > to be regarded as simply Comte's classification, corrected. That is to say, > the endeavor has been so to arrange the scheme that each science ought to > make appeal, for its general principles, exclusively to the sciences placed > above it, while for instances and special facts, it will find the sciences > below it more serviceable. (RL 107, 1904) > > CSP: After a hundred writers had tried to classify the sciences to no > advantage, Comte succeeded in making all the world appreciate a very simple > principle of arranging them; namely, that which places above any given > science those which lend it principles, and places below it those which > lend it new applications. (EP 2:458, 1909) > > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:29 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> John, List: >> >> JFS: ... the flow of theoretical principles is strictly one-way -- from >> mathematics to phaneroscopy to all the other sciences. >> But the flow of ideas and inspirations for the scientists themselves can >> flow in either direction. Peirce makes the point in his 1903 >> classification of the sciences. >> >> >> I am inclined to agree with this, but would appreciate an exact quotation >> (or at least a specific citation) of a passage where Peirce himself states >> or implies it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:54 AM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: >> >>> Bernard, Gary F, List. >>> >>> The confusion in this case is caused by a failure to distinguish two >>> kinds of dependency: (1) which science depends on which other sciences for >>> its fundamental principles and its data; (2) which sources do the >>> scientists depend on for their ideas, inspirations, purposes, etc. >>> >>> GF> I’ve argued in my book that the course of inquiry is generally >>> *cyclical*, implying that the choice of starting point is largely >>> arbitrary. >>> >>> That is true for the scientists -- they most often start from some very >>> specific detail. A famous example is Archimedes' Eureka moment, when he >>> stepped into his bathtub. In that moment, he observed a very narrow >>> detail: water rising in the tub. But that gave him an idea about a >>> fundamental mathematical principle. >>> >>> After he made that jump, he developed a new mathematical theory, which >>> he could apply in phaneroscopy (watching the flow of water) and then to a >>> specific engineering problem (determining the volume of the king's crown). >>> >>> This distinction resolves all the debates: the flow of theoretical >>> principles is strictly one-way -- from mathematics to phaneroscopy to all >>> the other sciences. >>> >>> But the flow of ideas and inspirations for the scientists themselves can >>> flow in either direction. Peirce makes the point in his 1903 >>> classification of the sciences. But many people miss the distinction: A >>> one-way. top-down flow for the sciences; but no restrictions on the >>> scientists who may get new inspirations from any source whatever. >>> >>> Suggestion: Please reread Peirce's 1903 classification. He does state >>> that distinction, but he doesn't emphasize it. Many authors who write >>> about the classification put so much emphasis on classification that their >>> readers completely forget about the scientists who are doing the work. >>> >>> 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. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
