Talk:Classification of the sciences (Peirce)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
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)
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)
[edit] A note
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)
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)
[edit] Big error repaired
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)
