BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I think that the 1.286 outline is a clear definition of phaneroscopy
and shows us how important objective observation is - such that it
enables us to differentiate experience into, possibly, different
categories. In this case, the three categories.
I can see describing the components of a language into different
classes, i.e., nouns, verbs etc. Describing the type of animals and
plants found in a meadow.
But I think we'd have to define 'what is a science' before we
describe such actions as 'science'. My view is that science requires
the analysis of this gathered data base into understanding the
functionality of the classes of data. ie..why and what is a noun; why
and what is a verb. Analyzing how these plants and animals function
together within the meadow. And of course, the same with the three
modal categories- analyzing how they function to form mind/matter .
I personally find such an approach within Peirce; ie., I haven't had
to go outside of his work to find it.
Edwina
On Thu 16/09/21 11:49 PM , "sowa @bestweb.net" s...@bestweb.net
sent:
Jon AS, List, Peirce developed the first version of his
trichotomy by analyzing the
patterns in Kant's 12 = 3 x 4 table. About 40 years later, he had
derived the same "very short list" by other methods: CSP: What I
term phaneroscopy is that study which, supported by the
direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its observations,
signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons; describes the
features of each; shows that although they are so inextricably mixed
together that no one can be isolated, yet it is manifest that their
characters are quite disparate; then proves, beyond question, that a
certain very short list comprises all of these broadest categories
of
phanerons there are; and finally proceeds to the laborious and
difficult task of enumerating the principal subdivisions of those
categories. (CP 1.286, 1904) JAS: That certainly sounds like a
science to me. But after another five years, he admits that it's
still a science egg.
He adds the hope that "it surely will in the future become a strong
and beneficient science." But he doesn't say why or how. He
doesn't
even give a few examples of what kinds of results to expect. CSP:
Phaneroscopy is ... still in the condition of a science-egg,
hardly any details of it being as yet distinguishable, though enough
to assure the student of it that, under the fostering care that it
is
sure to enjoy, if the human culture continues long, it surely will
in
the future become a strong and beneficent science. (R 645,
1909-1910) I agree with Peirce that the normative sciences depend
on the analysis
done by phaneroscopy. But the normative sciences are necessary for
(a) selecting which of the many aspects of the phaneron are worth
analyzing and (b) determining which results are significant and why.
This is indeed an area where I am beginning to disagree with Peirce.
And one reason for my disagreement is the much stronger results that
Albert Upton and Charles Cooper achieved by using a version of Lady
Welby's significs. The major difference is that significs combines
phaneroscopy and normative science in a single discipline. That
enables the normative principles to guide the selection of aspects
to
analyze and the direction to take during the analysis. But that's
a topic for another note. 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.
