Charles Sanders Peirce - Science of Review

Science of Review

Main article: Classification of the sciences (Peirce)

Peirce outlined two fields, "Cenoscopy" and "Science of Review", both of which he called philosophy. Both included philosophy about science. In 1903 he arranged them, from more to less theoretically basic, thus:

  1. Science of Discovery.
    1. Mathematics.
    2. Cenoscopy (philosophy as discussed earlier in this article—categorial, normative, metaphysical), as First Philosophy, concerns positive phenomena in general, does not rely on findings from special sciences, and includes the general study of inquiry and scientific method.
    3. Idioscopy, or the Special Sciences (of nature and mind).
  2. Science of Review, as Ultimate Philosophy, arranges "...the results of discovery, beginning with digests, and going on to endeavor to form a philosophy of science". His examples included Humboldt's Cosmos, Comte's Philosophie positive, and Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy.
  3. Practical Science, or the Arts.

Peirce placed, within Science of Review, the work and theory of classifying the sciences (including mathematics and philosophy). His classifications, on which he worked for many years, draw on argument and wide knowledge, and are of interest both as a map for navigating his philosophy and as an accomplished polymath's survey of research in his time.

Read more about this topic:  Charles Sanders Peirce

Famous quotes containing the words science of, science and/or review:

    “Nothing matters but the facts. Without them, the science of criminal investigation is nothing more than a guessing game.”
    —Blake Edwards (b. 1922)

    “Science is intimately integrated with the whole social structure and cultural tradition. They mutually support one other—only in certain types of society can science flourish, and conversely without a continuous and healthy development and application of science such a society cannot function properly.”
    —Talcott Parsons (1902–1979)

    “Americans have internalized the value that mothers of young children should be mothers first and foremost, and not paid workers. The result is that a substantial amount of confusion, ambivalence, guilt, and anxiety is experienced by working mothers. Our cultural expectations of mother and realities of female participation in the labor force are directly contradictory.”
    —Ruth E. Zambrana, U.S. researcher, M. Hurst, and R.L. Hite. “The Working Mother in Contemporary Perspectives: A Review of Literature,” Pediatrics (December 1979)