Talk:Classification of the sciences (Peirce)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Charles Sanders Peirce#Philosophy: logic, or semiotic|Logic]] The anchor (#Philosophy: logic, or semiotic) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
[[Charles Sanders Peirce#Philosophy: metaphysics|Metaphysics]] The anchor (#Philosophy: metaphysics) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I suggest that Wikipedia establishes a general article "Classification of the Sciences"

the input for this entry could be my contribution here: http://www.db.dk/bh/Core%20Concepts%20in%20LIS/articles%20a-z/classification_of_the_sciences.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.215.206.245 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it. I mean I would surely give it a try if I had more free time. I'm the fellow who once sent you a repaired link to the 1998 Nubiola article, in the article to which you linked above here. The Tetrast (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note[edit]

I need to explain the two question marks in the table of sciences, and, more importantly, explain that in 1902 Peirce put the psychical sciences BEFORE the physical sciences, reversed that order by 1903, any case held that neither had decisively influenced the other and held that their ordering with respect to each other perhaps didn't much matter. But I have to find the sources and I'm exhausted today. The Tetrast 21:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question marks have to do with an actual question about what letters of the alphabet Peirce used there. The Tetrast 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big error repaired[edit]

I had it all mixed up about the various texts involved in the classifications of the sciences. I've straightened it out and will be tweaking it more. Thank goodness I have some pros looking over my shoulder and alerting me. The Tetrast 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links are broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.244.11 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kent?[edit]

I am astounded to see there is no reference whatsoever in this article to Beverly Kent's seminal, Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 1987). Is this because this source was not known to the original authors of this article? or other reasons? My own research suggests that Kent's treatment is the seminal source for analysis thereafter. If I do not hear otherwise, I shall begin edits on this article to reflect Kent's analysis. Mkbergman (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]