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:

    The most useful and honorable science and occupation for a woman is the science of housekeeping. I know some that are miserly, very few that are good managers.
    Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)

    “You are bothered, I suppose, by the idea that you can’t possibly believe in miracles and mysteries, and therefore can’t make a good wife for Hazard. You might just as well make yourself unhappy by doubting whether you would make a good wife to me because you can’t believe the first axiom in Euclid. There is no science which does not begin by requiring you to believe the incredible.”
    Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918)

    Generally there is no consistent evidence of significant differences in school achievement between children of working and nonworking mothers, but differences that do appear are often related to maternal satisfaction with her chosen role, and the quality of substitute care.
    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)