Dear Tommi, lists,
Regarding Peirce's uncertainty about the ordering of physical vs.
psychical sciences, I should provide a quote because he doesn't express
his uncertainty in the other sources that I provided. In his 1904 draft
intellectual autobiography (L 107 and MS 914, in Ketner 2009
Thanks for this summary, Doug! (I’m including your whole post below, so the
biosemiotics list can see it as well as the Peirce list.)
About the case of the Danish TV journalist — as Frederik points out, it wasn’t
really “fraudulent reporting”, in a sense that what the reporter said was
Ben, Lists,
Given the principles that are being used to guide the formation of the
classification of the sciences, why is the division between the physical and
the physical sciences a dichotomy and not a trichotomy? If this is a natural
divisions between kinds of special sciences, then there
Jeff, Ben, lists,
The reason why Peirce includes only two branches of the special sciences in
his classification of the sciences may simply be that there are some
situations where there naturally are only dyads, and one sees this, for
example, in places in mathematics and physics.
The quotation
Jeff, lists,
Peirce was using not his own trichotomical principles, but Comte's
ordering principle, to /guide/ his classification of the sciences as
living pursuits by actual groups of people. He was also looking for
embodiments of his trichotomical principles in actual divisions of the
Howard, Stan, list,
If we take the irreducibly triadic nature of the ultimate reality
seriously, we probably cannot ascribe the reality to the physical world
alone, the Platonic form alone, or the mental world alone, but to ALL of
THESE simultaneously. Such a viewpoint may be called the
Frederik and list,
I agree that symbol systems are necessary from the beginning of
biological evolution, as Frederik has discussed, but I still have
trouble picturing the icons, indices, Dicisigns, and propositions at
the level of the cell.
Evolution requires stable storage and reliable
