name = Charles Peirce
image_size = 200px
caption = Charles Peirce
birth_date = September 10, 1839
death_date = April 19, 1914
nationality = American
Chemistry Philosophy Mathmatics
Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced "purse") (September 10, 1839 – April 19, 1914) was an American
logician, mathematician, philosopher, and scientist, born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Peirce was educated as a chemist and employed as a scientist for 30 years. It is largely his contributions to logic, mathematics, philosophy, and semiotics(and his founding of pragmatism) that is appreciated today. In 1934, the philosopher Paul Weiss called Peirce "the most original and versatile of American philosophers and America's greatest logician" [Weiss, Paul (1934), "Peirce, Charles Sanders" in the "Dictionary of American Biography". Arisbe [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/weissbio.htm Online] .] .
Although an innovator in fields such as mathematics, research methodology, the
philosophy of science, epistemology, and metaphysics, Peirce considered himself a logician first and foremost. While he made major contributions to formal logic, "logic" for him encompassed much of what is now called the philosophy of science and epistemology. He, in turn, saw logic as a branch of semiotics, of which he is a founder. As early as 1886 he saw that logical operations could be carried out by electrical switching circuits, an idea used decades later to produce digital computers.
Charles Sanders Peirce was the son of Sarah Hunt Mills and
Benjamin Peirce, a professor of astronomyand mathematicsat Harvard University, perhaps the first serious research mathematician in America. At 12 years of age, Charles read an older brother's copy of Richard Whately's "Elements of Logic", then the leading English language text on the subject. Thus began his lifelong fascination with logic and reasoning. He went on to obtain the BA and MA from Harvard, and in 1863 the Lawrence Scientific Schoolawarded him its first M.Sc. in chemistry. This last degree was awarded "summa cum laude"; otherwise his academic record was undistinguished. At Harvard, he began lifelong friendships with Francis Ellingwood Abbot, Chauncey Wright, and William James. One of his Harvard instructors, Charles William Eliot, formed an unfavorable opinion of Peirce. This opinion proved fateful, because Eliot, while President of Harvard 1869–1909 — a period encompassing nearly all of Peirce's working life — repeatedly vetoed having Harvard employ Peirce in any capacity.
Peirce suffered all his life from what was then known as "facial neuralgia," a very painful nervous/facial condition. The Brent biography says that when in the throes of its pain "he was, at first, almost stupefied, and then aloof, cold, depressed, extremely suspicious, impatient of the slightest crossing, and subject to violent outbursts of temper." His condition would today be diagnosed as
trigeminal neuralgia. Its consequences may have led to the social isolation which made the later years of his life so tragic.
United States Coast Survey
Between 1859 and 1891, Peirce was intermittently employed in various scientific capacities by the United States Coast Survey, where he enjoyed the protection of his highly influential father until the latter's death in 1880. This employment exempted Peirce from having to take part in the Civil War. It would have been very awkward for him to do so, as the Boston Brahmin Peirces sympathized with the Confederacy. At the Survey, he worked mainly in
geodesyand in gravimetry, refining the use of pendulums to determine small local variations in the strength of the earth's gravity. The Survey sent him to Europe five times, the first in 1871, as part of a group dispatched to observe a solar eclipse. While in Europe, he sought out Augustus De Morgan, William Stanley Jevons, and William Kingdon Clifford, British mathematicians and logicians whose turn of mind resembled his own. From 1869 to 1872, he was employed as an Assistant in Harvard's astronomical observatory, doing important work on determining the brightness of stars and the shape of the Milky Way. (On Peirce the astronomer, see Lenzen's chapter in Moore and Robin, 1964.) In 1876 he was elected a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1878, he was the first to define the meteras so many wavelengths of lightof a certain frequency, the definition employed until 1983 (Taylor 2001: 5).
During the 1880s, Peirce's indifference to bureaucratic detail waxed while the quality and timeliness of his Survey work waned. Peirce took years to write reports that he should have completed in mere months. Meanwhile, he wrote hundreds of logic, philosophy, and science entries for the "Century Dictionary". [See the Peirce Edition Project (PEP) on Peirce's contributions to the Century Dictionary at UQÀM (Université du Québec à Montréal) at http://www.pep.uqam.ca/index_en.pep .
The "Century Dictionary" itself is available both online (at no charge) and on CD at http://www.global-language.com/century/ . ] In 1885, an investigation by the
Allison Commissionexonerated Peirce, but led to the dismissal of Superintendent Julius Hilgardand several other Coast Survey employees for misuse of public funds. In 1891, Peirce resigned from the Coast Survey, at the request of Superintendent Thomas Corwin Mendenhall. He never again held regular employment.
Johns Hopkins University
In 1879, Peirce was appointed Lecturer in logic at the new
Johns Hopkins University. That university was strong in a number of areas that interested him, such as philosophy (Royce and Dewey did their PhDs at Hopkins), psychology (taught by G. Stanley Halland studied by Joseph Jastrow, who coauthored a landmark empirical study with Peirce), and mathematics (taught by J. J. Sylvester, who came to admire Peirce's work on mathematics and logic). This untenured position proved to be the only academic appointment Peirce ever held.
Brent documents something Peirce never suspected, namely that his efforts to obtain academic employment, grants, and scientific respectability were repeatedly frustrated by the covert opposition of a major American scientist of the day,
Simon Newcomb. Peirce's ability to find academic employment may also have been frustrated by a difficult personality. Brent conjectures about various psychological and other difficulties.
Peirce's personal life also handicapped him. His first wife, Harriet Melusina Fay, left him in 1875. He soon took up with a woman whose maiden name and nationality remain uncertain to this day (the best guess is that her name was Juliette Froissy and that she was French), but his divorce from Harriet became final only in 1883, after which he married Juliette. That year, Newcomb pointed out to a Johns Hopkins trustee that Peirce, while a Hopkins employee, had lived and traveled with a woman to whom he was not married. The ensuing scandal led to his dismissal. Just why Peirce's later applications for academic employment at
Clark University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Michigan, Cornell University, Stanford University, and the University of Chicagowere all unsuccessful can no longer be determined. Presumably, his having lived with Juliette for years while still legally married to Harriet led him to be deemed morally unfit for academic employment anywhere in the USA. Peirce had no children by either marriage.
In 1887 Peirce spent part of his inheritance from his parents to buy convert|2000|acre|km2|0 of rural land near
Milford, Pennsylvania, land which never yielded an economic return. There he built a large house which he named "Arisbe" where he spent the rest of his life, writing prolifically, much of it unpublished to this day. His living beyond his means soon led to grave financial and legal difficulties. Peirce spent much of his last two decades unable to afford heat in winter, and subsisting on old bread kindly donated by the local baker. Unable to afford new stationery, he wrote on the verso side of old manuscripts. An outstanding warrant for assault and unpaid debts led to his being a fugitive in New York City for a while. Several people, including his brother James Mills Peirceand his neighbors, relatives of Gifford Pinchot, settled his debts and paid his property taxes and mortgage.
Peirce did some scientific and engineering consulting and wrote a good deal for meager pay, mainly dictionary and encyclopedia entries, and reviews for "The Nation" (with whose editor,
Wendell Phillips Garrisonhe became friendly). He did translations for the Smithsonian Institution, at its director Samuel Langley's instigation. Peirce also did substantial mathematical calculations for Langley's research on powered flight. Hoping to make money, Peirce tried inventing. He began but did not complete a number of books. In 1888, President Grover Clevelandappointed him to the Assay Commission. From 1890 onwards, he had a friend and admirer in Judge Francis C. Russellof Chicago, who introduced Peirce to Paul Carusand Edward Hegeler, the editor and the owner, respectively, of the pioneering American philosophy journal "The Monist", which eventually published 14 or so articles by Peirce. He applied to the newly formed Carnegie Institutionfor a grant to write a book summarizing his life's work. The application was doomed; his nemesis Newcomb served on the Institution's executive committee, and its President had been the President of Johns Hopkins at the time of Peirce's dismissal.
The one who did the most to help Peirce in these desperate times was his old friend
William James, who dedicated his "Will to Believe" to Peirce, and who arranged for Peirce to be paid to give four series of lectures at or near Harvard. Most important, each year from 1898 until his death in 1910, James would write to his friends in the Boston intelligentsia, asking that they make a financial contribution to help support Peirce. Peirce reciprocated by designating James's eldest son as his heir should Juliette predecease him. [It has been said that this was Peirce's motive for adding Santiago, 'Saint James' in Spanish, to his full name (Joseph Brent 1998: 315–16, 374), but Peirce was mentioned in print as "Charles Santiago Peirce" in 1890, 1891, and 1892. Brent claimed to have found Peirce explaining his motive in MS 318, but other scholars don't find it there. The claim of some connection between "Santiago" and William James goes back at least to William James's wife Alice, quoted in 1927 by F.C.S. Schiller on pp. 90-91 in "William James and the Making of Pragmatism" in "The Personalist" 8, April 1927.
In recent [http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=520216#520216 correspondence at] peirce-l: Prof. Emeritus [http://www.cspeirce.com/homepage/ransdell.htm Joseph Ransdell] writes that while he was a Columbia graduate student he noticed an 1890 listing of Peirce with "Santiago" in Schröder and pointed it out to some Peirce scholars; Prof. Jaime Nubiola, director of the Grupo de Estudios Peirceanos ( [http://www.unav.es/gep/ GEP] ) at U Navarra, Spain, in turn writes that
on p. 710 of Ernst Schroeder 1890 below "Peirce, Benjamin (gesprochen: Pörss)" is listed: "Peirce, Charles S(antiago)." and eleven quotations from his papers are included under that entry.Nubiola points out that the mathematician Ventura Reyes Prósper referred to Peirce's middle name as "Santiago" in letters and two papers (1891 and 1892) and wrote in a footnote to the 1892 paper: "Although it may seem strange, his first name is in English and his second is in Spanish; I do not know why." For the letters and papers, see Jaime Nubiola and Jesús Cobo, "The Spanish Mathematician Ventura Reyes Prósper and his connections with Charles S. Peirce and Christine Ladd-Franklin" (version 11-6-2000), "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/nubiola/reyes.htm Eprint] .
In MS 1611 (1903), for manuscript directory and biographical dictionary of the "Men of Science in the United States" (see [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/robin/robin_fm/bio.htm page] at the Robin Catalogue), Peirce wrote: "(I am variously listed in print as Charles Santiago Peirce, Charles Saunders Peirce, and Charles Sanders Peirce. Under the circumstances a noncommittal S. suits me best)" (as quoted and sourced by Susan Howe, "Pierce-Arrow", 1999, Google Book Search Beta [http://books.google.com/books?id=gV0P31ThemoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%221611%22#PPA7,M1 Eprint] , B&N [http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=0811214109&r=1 Eprint] , scroll down, click on "Features", scroll down).
This issue was raised at peirce-l back also in 2000. Joseph Brent (author of "Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life", history professor at the U District of Columbia) at peirce-l [http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=13608#13608 wrote] on Sept. 6, 2000 and [http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=13702#13702 again on] Sept. 7, 2000 that he clearly remembers some MS wherein Peirce does say that he adopted "Santiago" in honor of William James.
In 1906 Peirce used "Sanders Santiago" -- both middle names together. See list of instances with links at [http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=520161#520161 Eprint] .]
Peirce died destitute in
Milford, Pennsylvania, twenty years before his widow.
Bertrand Russellopined, "Beyond doubt [...] he was one of the most original minds of the later nineteenth century, and certainly the greatest American thinker ever." (Yet his " Principia Mathematica" does not mention Peirce.) A. N. Whitehead, while reading some of Peirce's unpublished manuscripts soon after arriving at Harvard in 1924, was struck by how Peirce had anticipated his own "process" thinking. (On Peirce and process metaphysics, see the chapter by Lowe in Moore and Robin, 1964.) Karl Popperviewed Peirce as "one of the greatest philosophers of all times" [Quoted by James Bird, "A Giant's Voice from the Past", Times Higher Education Supplement, 8 Sept. 1989.] . Nevertheless, Peirce's accomplishments were not immediately recognized. His imposing contemporaries William Jamesand Josiah Royceadmired him, and Cassius Jackson Keyserat Columbia and C. K. Ogdenwrote about Peirce with respect, but to no immediate effect.
The first scholar to give Peirce his considered professional attention was Royce's student
Morris Raphael Cohen, the editor of a 1923 anthology of Peirce's writings titled "Chance, Love, and Logic" and the author of the first bibliography of Peirce's scattered writings. John Deweyhad had Peirce as an instructor at Johns Hopkins, and from 1916 onwards, Dewey's writings repeatedly mention Peirce with deference. His 1938 "Logic: The Theory of Inquiry" is Peircean through and through. The publication of the first six volumes of the "Collected Papers" (1931–35), the most important event to date in Peirce studies and one Cohen made possible by raising the needed funds, did not lead to an immediate outpouring of secondary studies. The editors of those volumes, Charles Hartshorneand Paul Weiss, did not become Peirce specialists. Early landmarks of the secondary literature include the monographs by Buchler (1939), Feibleman (1946), and Goudge (1950), the 1941 Ph.D. thesis by Arthur W. Burks(who went on to edit volumes 7 and 8 of the "Collected Papers"), and the edited volume Wiener and Young (1952). The Charles S. Peirce Society was founded in 1946. Its "Transactions", an academic journal specializing in Peirce, pragmatism, and American philosophy, has appeared since 1965.
In 1949, while doing unrelated archival work, the historian of mathematics
Carolyn Eisele(1902–2000) chanced on an autograph letter by Peirce. Thus began her 40 years of research on Peirce the mathematician and scientist, culminating in Eisele (1976, 1979, 1985). Beginning around 1960, the philosopher and historian of ideas Max Fisch(1900–1995) emerged as an authority on Peirce; Fisch (1986) reprints many of the relevant articles, including a wide-ranging survey (Fisch 1986: 422-48) of the impact of Peirce's thought through 1983.
Peirce has come to enjoy a significant international following. There are university research centers devoted to Peirce studies and
pragmatismin Brazil [Centro de Estudos Peirceanos ( [http://www.pucsp.br/pos/cos/cepe/ CeneP] ) (M. Lúcia Santaella-Braga, Pontificia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP), Brasil)] , Finland [Represented on the Internet by [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/ Commens] : Virtual Centre for Peirce Studies at the University of Helsinki] , Germany [
* [http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~wirth/ International Research Group on Abductive Inference] at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main (Uwe Wirth, Alexander Roesler; Frankfurt, Germany).
*Theological Research Group in C.S.Peirce's Philosophy (Hermann Deuser, Justus-Liebig-Universität Geissen; Wilfred Haerle, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany).
*Research Group on Semiotic Epistemology and Mathematics Education, Institut für Didaktik der Mathematik (Michael Hoffman, Michael Otte, Universität Bielefeld, Germany).] , France [Institut de Recherche en Sémiotique, Communication et Éducation ( [http://webup.univ-perp.fr/lsh/rch/semiotics/irsce/irsce.html L 'I.R.S.C.E] )(Gérard Deledalle, Joëlle Réthoré, Université de Perpignan, France, 1974-2003)] and Spain [Grupo de Estudios Peirceanos [http://www.unav.es/gep/ GEP] (Jaime Nubiola, University of Navarra, Spain)] . His writings have been translated into several languages, including German, French, Finnish, Spanish, and Swedish. Since 1950, there have been French, Italian, Spanish and British Peirceans of note. For many years, the North American philosophy department most devoted to Peirce was the
University of Toronto's, thanks in good part to the leadership of Thomas Goudge and David Savan. In recent years, American Peirce scholars have clustered at Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, the home of the Peirce Edition Project, and the Pennsylvania State University.
Robert Burch has commented on Peirce's current influence as follows:
Currently, considerable interest is being taken in Peirce's ideas from outside the arena of academic philosophy. The interest comes from industry, business, technology, and the military; and it has resulted in the existence of a number of agencies, institutes, and laboratories in which ongoing research into and development of Peircean concepts is being undertaken. (Burch 2001/2005.)
Peirce's reputation rests largely on a number of academic papers published in American scholarly and scientific journals. These papers, along with a selection of Peirce's previously unpublished work and a smattering of his correspondence, fill the eight volumes of the "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce", published between 1931 and 1958. An important recent sampler of Peirce's philosophical writings is the two volume "The Essential Peirce" (Houser and Kloesel (eds.) 1992, Peirce Edition Project (eds.) 1998).
The only full-length book that Peirce authored and saw published in his lifetime was "Photometric Researches" [Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, Germany. Google Book Search Beta [http://books.google.com/books?id=wNAMAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&#PPP5,M1 Eprint] , users outside the USA may not yet be able to gain full access. "Internet Archive" ( [http://www.archive.org/search.php? search it] ) seems to have no copy of this book.] (1878), a 181-page monograph on the applications of spectrographic methods to astronomy. Also published in book form was Peirce's 62-page "Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of Boole's Calculus of Logic" [The extraction was published by Welch, Bigelow, and Company for Harvard University (1870), [http://books.google.com/books?id=fFnWmf5oLaoC&printsec=titlepage title page] via Google Books beta, users outside the USA may not yet be able to gain full access to the content. Reprinted (CP 3.45–149), (W 2, 359–429).] (1870) which was an extraction from "Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 9" (1870), pp. 317–378. While at Johns Hopkins, he edited "Studies in Logic" (published 1883) ["Studies in Logic" (1883), Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, MA, 1883, 203 pages + iii-iv (preface). Reprinted: "Foundations of Semiotics, Volume 1", John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1983. Google Book Search Beta [http://books.google.com/books?id=V7oIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage Eprint] , users outside the USA may not yet be able to gain full access. "Internet Archive" [http://www.archive.org/details/studiesinlogic00peiruoft Eprint] . For contents see
Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography.] , containing chapters by himself and his graduate students. An abridged 23-page version of Peirce's syllabus for his 1903 Lowell Institute lectures was published as a pamphlet in 1903 ["A Syllabus of Certain Topics in Logic" (1903), Alfred Mudge & Son, printers, Boston, 1903. See Robin Catalogue entry for MS 478, [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/robin/robin_fm/logic.htm Eprint] for description.] . He was a frequent book reviewer and contributor to "The Nation", work reprinted in Ketner and Cook (1975–87). He wrote articles appearing in "The Monist", "Popular Science Monthly", the "Journal of Speculative Philosophy", and elsewhere. He also gave various series of lectures over the years, for which see Lectures by Peirce.
Hardwick (2001) published Peirce's entire correspondence with
Victoria, Lady Welby. Peirce's other published correspondence is largely limited to the 14 letters included in volume 8 of the "Collected Papers", and the 20-odd pre-1890 items included in the "Writings". Harvard Universityacquired the papers found in Peirce's study soon after his death, but did not microfilm them until 1964. Only after Richard Robin (1967) catalogued this "Nachlass" did it become clear that Peirce had left approximately 1650 unpublished manuscripts, totalling over 100,000 pages. ["The manuscript material now (1997) comes to more than a hundred thousand pages. These contain many pages of no philosophical interest, but the number of pages on philosophy certainly number much more than half of that. Also, a significant but unknown number of manuscripts have been lost." -- Joseph Ransdell, 1997, "Some Leading Ideas of Peirce's Semiotic", [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/leading.htm#note2 end note 2] , 1997 light revision of 1977 version in "Semiotica" 19, 1977, pp. 157-178.] Eisele (1976, 1985) published some of this work, but most of it remains unpublished. For more on the vicissitudes of Peirce's papers, see (Houser 1989 [Houser, Nathan, "The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers", presented to the Fourth Congress of the International Associationfor Semiotic Studies, Perpignan, France, 1989. Published in "Signs of Humanity", vol. 3., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992, pp. 1259-1268. [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/houser/fortunes.htm Eprint] ] ).
The limited coverage, and defective editing and organization, of the "Collected Papers" led Max Fisch and others in the 1970s to found the Peirce Edition Project, whose mission is to prepare a more complete critical chronological edition, known as the "Writings". Only 6 out of a planned 31 volumes have appeared to date, but they cover the period from 1859–1890, when Peirce carried out much of his best-known work.
List of major works
* See Bibliography for comprehensive list of works
* On a New List of Categories (1867) — See Theory of categories.
* Logic of Relatives (1870)
* Illustrations of the Logic of Science (1877–1878) — See Pragmatism
** The Fixation of Belief (1877)
** How to Make Our Ideas Clear (1878).
* Logic of Relatives (1883)
* The "Monist" Metaphysical Series (1891–1893)
** The Architecture of Theories (1891)
** The Doctrine of Necessity Examined (1892)
** The Law of Mind (1892)
** Man's Glassy Essence (1892)
** Evolutionary Love (1893)
* The Simplest Mathematics (1902)
* Kaina Stoicheia (1904) — [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/stoicheia/stoicheia.htm Online copy at the "Arisbe" web site]
Mathematics of logic
It may be added that algebra was formerly called "Cossic", in English, or the "Rule of Cos"; and the first algebra published in England was called "The Whetstone of Wit", because the author supposed that the word "cos" was the Latin word so spelled, which means a whetstone. But in fact, "cos" was derived from the Italian, "cosa", thing, the thing you want to find, the unknown quantity whose value is sought. It is the Latin "caussa", a thing aimed at, a cause. ("Elements of Mathematics", MS 165 (c. 1895), NEM 2, 50.)
Peirce made a number of striking discoveries in foundational mathematics, nearly all of which came to be appreciated only long after his death. He:
:* Showed how what is now called Boolean algebra could be expressed by means of a single binary operation, either NAND or its dual, NOR. (See also
De Morgan's Laws). This discovery anticipated Shefferby 33 years.
:* In Peirce (1885), set out what can be read as the first (primitive)
axiomatic set theory, anticipating Zermeloby about two decades.
:* Discovered the now-classic axiomatization of natural number arithmetic, a few years before
Dedekindand Peanodid so.
:* Discovered, independently of Dedekind, an important formal definition of an
infinite set, namely, as a set that can be put into a one-to-one correspondencewith one of its proper subsets.
Beginning with his first paper on the "Logic of Relatives" (1870), Peirce extended the
theory of relationsthat Augustus De Morganhad just recently woken from its Cinderella slumbers. Much of the actual mathematics of relations that is taken for granted today was "borrowed" from Peirce, not always with all due credit (Anellis 1995). Beginning in 1940, Alfred Tarskiand his students rediscovered aspects of Peirce's larger vision of relational logic, developing the perspective of relational algebra. These theoretical resources gradually worked their way into applications, in large part instigated by the work of Edgar F. Codd, who happened to be a doctoral student of the Peirce editor and scholar Arthur W. Burks, on the relational modelor the relational paradigm for implementing and using databases. In 1918, the logician C. I. Lewis wrote, "The contributions of C.S Peirce to symbolic logic are more numerous and varied than those of any other writer -- at least in the nineteenth century." [Lewis, Clarence Irving (1918), "Peirce", ch. 1, § 7, on pp. 79-106 (Live Search Books Beta [http://search.live.com/results.aspx?scope=books#q=Peirce&filter=all&start=1&t=2Z3d6ZCopQ3fqNW7SKzhww&sq=Peirce page 79] , note: Live Search Books does not work in at least some versions of Mozilla.), in Lewis's "A Survey of Symbolic Logic", University of California Press, Berkeley, CA]
In the four volume work, "The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce" (1976), mathematician and Peirce scholar Carolyn Eisele published a large number of Peirce's previously unpublished manuscripts on mathematical subjects, including the drafts for an introductory textbook, allusively titled "The New Elements of Mathematics", that presented mathematics from a decidedly novel, if not revolutionary standpoint.
In 1902 Peirce applied to the newly established Carnegie Institution for aid "in accomplishing certain scientific work", presenting an "explanation of "what work" is proposed" plus an "appendix containing a fuller statement". These parts of the letter, along with excerpts from earlier drafts, can be found in NEM 4 (Eisele 1976). The appendix is organized as a "List of Proposed Memoirs on Logic", and No. 12 among the 36 proposals is titled "On the Definition of Logic", the earlier draft of which is quoted in full above.
On Peirce and his contemporaries
Ernst Schröderand Gottlob Frege, Hilary Putnam(1982) [Putnam, H. (1982), "Peirce the Logician', "Historia Mathematica" 9, 290–301. Reprinted, pp. 252–260 in Hilary Putnam, "Realism with a Human Face", Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990. Excerpt consisting of article's last five pages: [http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm Eprint] .] wrote that he found through research that, though Frege had priority by four years, it was Peirce and his student Oscar Howard Mitchellwho effectively discovered the quantifier for the mathematical world. The main evidence for Putnam's claims is "On the Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation" [Peirce, C.S. (1885), "On the Algebra of Logic: A Contribution to the Philosophy of Notation", "American Journal of Mathematics" [http://books.google.com/books?id=lwYPAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage 7] (1885), pp. 180–202. Presented, National Academy of Sciences, Newport, RI, 14–17 Oct 1884. Reprinted (CP 3.359–403), (W 5, 162–190), (EP 1, 225–228, in part). [http://books.google.com/books?id=lwYPAAAAIAAJ&&pg=PA180 Eprint] via Google Book Search Beta; users outside the USA may not yet be able to gain full access.] (1885), published in the premier American mathematical journal of the day. Peanoand Ernst Schröder, among others, cited this article and used or adapted Peirce's notations, which are a typographical variant of those currently used. Peirce apparently was ignorant of Frege's work, despite their rival achievements in logic, philosophy of language, and the foundations of mathematics.
Peirce's other major discoveries in formal logic include:
:* Distinguishing (Peirce, 1885) between first-order and second-order quantification.
:* Seeing that Boolean calculations could be carried out by means of electrical switches, [Letter, Peirce to A. Marquand, W 5, 421–424] anticipating
Claude Shannonby more than 50 years.
:* Devising the
existential graphs, a diagrammatic notation for the predicate calculus. These graphs form the basis of John F. Sowa's conceptual graphs and of Sun-Joo Shin's diagrammatic reasoning.
A philosophy of logic, grounded in his categories and semiotic, can be extracted from Peirce's writings. This philosophy, as well as Peirce's logical work more generally, is exposited and defended in, and in [http://www.jfsowa.com/peirce/putnam.htm Hilary Putnam (1982)] , the "Introduction" to Houser et al (1997), and Dipert's chapter in Misak (2004).
Jean Van Heijenoort(Van Heijenoort 1967), Jaakko Hintikkain his chapter in Brunning and Forster (1997), and Geraldine Brady (Brady 2000) divide those who study formal (and natural) languages into two camps: the model-theorists / semanticists, and the proof theorists / universalists. Hintikka and Brady view Peirce as a pioneer model theorist. On how the young Bertrand Russell, especially his "Principles of Mathematics" and Principia Mathematica, did not do Peirce justice, see Anellis (1995).
Peirce's work on formal logic had admirers other than
:* The philosophical algebraist
William Kingdon Cliffordand the logician William Ernest Johnson, both British;
:* The Polish school of logic and foundational mathematics, including
Arthur Prior, whose "Formal Logic" and chapter in Moore and Robin (1964) praised and studied Peirce's logical work.
Logic of information
.... The information of a term is the measure of its superfluous comprehension. That is to say that the proper office of the comprehension is to determine the extension of the term. For instance, you and I are men because we possess those attributes — having two legs, being rational, &tc. — which make up the comprehension of "man". Every addition to the comprehension of a term lessens its extension up to a certain point, after that further additions increase the information instead. (C.S. Peirce, "The Logic of Science, or, Induction and Hypothesis" (1866), W 1, 467.)
Peirce held that science achieves statistical probabilities, not certainties, and that chance, a veering from law, is very real. In probability theory itself he held with the frequency interpretation (objective ratios of cases) rather than probability as a measure of confidence or belief, and he assigned probability to an argument’s conclusion rather than to a proposition, event, etc., as such.
Other areas of mathematics
Peirce produced a quincuncial projection of a sphere which kept angles true and resulted in less distortion of area than did other projections.
Peirce developed ideas about mathematical continuity. Continuity, or
synechism, is important, even crucial, in his philosophy.
It is not sufficiently recognized that Peirce’s career was that of a scientist, not a philosopher; and that during his lifetime he was known and valued chiefly as a scientist, only secondarily as a logician, and scarcely at all as a philosopher. Even his work in philosophy and logic will not be understood until this fact becomes a standing premise of Peircian studies. (Max Fisch, in (Moore and Robin 1964, 486).
Peirce was a working scientist for 30 years, and arguably was a professional philosopher only during the five years he lectured at Johns Hopkins. He learned philosophy mainly by reading, each day, a few pages of
Kant's " Critique of Pure Reason", in the original German, while a Harvard undergraduate. His writings bear on a wide array of disciplines, including astronomy, metrology, geodesy, mathematics, logic, philosophy, the history and philosophy of science, linguistics, economics, and psychology. This work has become the subject of renewed interest and approval, resulting in a revival inspired not only by his anticipations of recent scientific developments but also by his demonstration of how philosophy can be applied effectively to human problems.
Peirce's writings repeatedly refer to a system of three categories, named Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, devised early in his career in reaction to his reading of
Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel. He later initiated the philosophical tendency known as pragmatism, a variant of which his life-long friend William Jamesmade popular. Peirce believed that any truth is provisional, and that the truth of any proposition cannot be certain but only probable. The name he gave to this state of affairs was " fallibilism". This fallibilism and pragmatism may be seen as playing roles in his work similar to those of skepticismand positivism, respectively, in the work of others.
Theory of categories
On May 14, 1867, the 27-year-old Peirce presented a paper entitled " [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/newlist/nl-frame.htm On a New List of Categories] " to the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which published it the following year. Among other things, this paper outlined a theory of three universal categories that Peirce would apply throughout philosophy and elsewhere for the rest of his life. Most students of Peirce will readily agree about their prevalence throughout his philosophical work. Peirce scholars generally regard the "New List" as foundational or breaking the ground for Peirce's "architectonic", his blueprint for a pragmatic philosophy. In the categories one will discern, concentrated, the pattern which one finds formed by the three grades of clearness in " [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ideas/id-frame.htm How To Make Our Ideas Clear] " (1878 foundational paper for pragmatism), and in numerous other trichotomies in his work.
"On a New List of Categories" is cast as a Kantian deduction; it is short but dense and difficult to summarize. The following table is compiled from that and later works. "*Note:" An interpretant is the product of an interpretive process, or the content of an interpretation.
Esthetics and ethics
Peirce did not write extensively in esthetics and ethics, but held that, together with logic in the broad sense, those studies constituted the normative sciences. He defined esthetics as the study of good and bad; and characterized the good as "the admirable". He held that, as the study of good and bad, esthetics is the study of the ends governing all conduct and comes ahead of other normative studies. [See "Charles S. Peirce on Esthetics and Ethics: A Bibliography" by Kelly A. Parker, of the Department of Philosophy, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan, USA in 1999. PDFlink| [http://agora.phi.gvsu.edu/kap/CSP_Bibliography/CSP_norm_bib.pdf Eprint] |145 KiB ]
Peirce reserved the spelling "aesthetics" for the study of artistic beauty.
Philosophy: Logic, or semiotic
Logic as philosophical
For Peirce, logic, as such, is a division of philosophy; is a normative science, after ethics and esthetics; and is "the art of devising methods of research". [Quote from Peirce, C.S., 1882, "Introductory Lecture on the Study of Logic" delivered September 1882, "Johns Hopkins University Circulars", vol. 2, no. 19, pp. 11-12, November 1892, Google Book Search Beta [http://books.google.com/books?id=E0YFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA11&dq=%22art+of+devising+methods+of+research%22 Eprint] , users outside the USA may not yet be able to gain full access. Reprinted (EP1, 214-214; W4, 378-382; CP 7.59-76).] Peirce called (with no sense of deprecation) "mathematics of logic" much of the kind of thing which, in current research and applications, is called simply "logic". He was productive in both areas, which were deeply connected in his work and thought.
Presuppositions of logic
In his "F.R.L." [First Rule of Logic] (1899), he states that the first, and "in one sense, this sole", rule of reason is that, "in order to learn, one needs to desire to learn" and desire it without resting satisfied with that which one is inclined to think.Peirce (1899), "F.R.L." [First Rule of Logic] , CP 1.135-140, [http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/peirce/frl_99.htm Eprint] ] So, logic's first rule is that reason's prerequisite is wonder. From that, he draws out a corollary::...there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy:
Do not block the way of inquiry.
Peirce adds, that method and economy are best in research but no outright sin inheres in trying any theory in the sense that the investigation via its trial adoption can proceed unimpeded and undiscouraged, and that "the one unpardonable offence" is a philosophical barricade against truth's advance, an offense to which "metaphysicians in all ages have shown themselves the most addicted". Peirce in many writings holds that logic precedes metaphysics (ontological, religious, and physical). [See
Classification of the sciences (Peirce).]
In "F.R.L.", Peirce proceeds to list four common barriers to inquiry: (1) Assertion of absolute certainty; (2) maintaining that something is absolutely unknowable; (3) maintaining that something is absolutely inexplicable because absolutely basic or ultimate; (4) holding that perfect exactitude is possible, especially such as to quite preclude unusual and anomalous phenomena. To deny absolute certainty is the heart of "fallibilism", which Peirce unfolds into refusals to set up any of the listed barriers. Peirce elsewhere argues (1897) that logic's presupposition of fallibilism leads at length to the view that chance and continuity are very real (
tychismand synechism). [For a fuller discussion by Peirce of fallibilism and its powerful ramifications, see "Fallibilism, Continuity, and Evolution", 1897, CP 1.141-175 ( [http://www.textlog.de/4248.html Eprint] ), which the "Collected Papers"’s editors placed directly after "F.R.L." (1899, CP 1.135-140).]
One might have thought that, as a whole, the topic belongs within theory of inquiry ("Methodeutic" or "Philosophical or Speculative Rhetoric"), his third department of logic; but the First Rule of Logic pertains to the mind's presuppositions in undertaking reason and logic, presuppositions, for instance, that there are truth and real things independent of what you or I think of them.Peirce offered a sophisticated definition of truth in tandem with his definition of the real, as presuppositions of reason, all by way of example in his exposition of pragmatic logical method. See
Pragmaticismand also the many passages by Peirce quoted under "Truth" and "Real, Reality" at the "Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms" ( [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Eprint] ).] He describes such ideas as, collectively, hopes which, in particular cases, one is unable seriously to doubt. [Peirce (1902), The Carnegie Institute Application, Memoir 10, MS L75.361-362, "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/ver1/l75v1-04.htm#m10 Eprint] .]
Logic as formal semiotic
Peirce's semiotic is philosophical logic studied in terms of signs and sign processes. Peirce conceives of, defines, and discusses things like assertions and interpretations in terms of philosophical logic rather than basically in terms of psychology or social studies. In a formal vein, Peirce says:
"On the Definition of Logic". Logic is "formal semiotic". A sign is something, "A", which brings something, "B", its "interpretant" sign, determined or created by it, into the same sort of correspondence (or a lower implied sort) with something, "C", its "object", as that in which itself stands to "C". This definition no more involves any reference to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place within which a particle lies during a lapse of time. It is from this definition that I deduce the principles of logic by mathematical reasoning, and by mathematical reasoning that, I aver, will support criticism of
Weierstrassian severity, and that is perfectly evident. The word "formal" in the definition is also defined. (Peirce, "Carnegie Application", NEM 4, 54).
Peirce himself referred to his general study of signs as "
semiotic" or " semeiotic". Both terms are current in both singular and plural forms. [Regarding the evolution of the word "semiotic" and its spellings:
*Romeo, Luigi (1977), "The Derivation of 'Semiotics' through the History of the Discipline", "Semiosis", vol. 6 pp. 37-50. Retraces the evolution and usage of the term from antiquity to Locke and on up to the late 1800s when Peirce first employed it. (Reference with description supplied by Andrew LaVelle in peirce-l post "Luigi Romeo's article on the history of the term "semiotics" " , September 23, 2007, 04:57:27, [http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=513252#513252 Eprint] )
*Sebeok, T.A. (1976), "Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs", Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. Continues the story into the 20th Century. (Reference with description supplied by Andrew LaVelle in above-linked peirce-l post.)
**(2003), "On the Word Semiotics, Formation and Origins", "Semiotica" 146.1/4, 1–50.
**(2004a), "Why Semiotics?" (Ottawa, Canada: Legas). [http://www.legaspublishing.com/Books/WhySemiotics/index.htm Legas catalog page]
**(2004b), "'Σημειον' to 'Sign' by Way of 'Signum': On the Interplay of Translation and Interpretation in the Establishment of Semiotics”, "Semiotica" 148–1/4, 187–227.
**(2006), "On 'Semiotics' as Naming the Doctrine of Signs", "Semiotica" 158.1/4 (2006), 1–33.] Peirce began writing on semiotic in the 1860s, around the time that he devised his system of three categories, and from the beginning it was based on the concept of a triadic
sign relation. His 1907 definition of " semiosis" is "action, or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of "three" subjects, such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs". [Peirce 1907, CP 5.484. Reprinted (EP 2, 411 in "Pragmatism," 398-433).] . His semiotic is based on understanding of that triadic relation.
Dynamics of inquiry
Every mind which passes from doubt to belief must have ideas which follow after one another in time. Every mind which reasons must have ideas which not only follow after others but are caused by them. Every mind which is capable of logical criticism of its inferences, must be aware of this determination of its ideas by previous ideas. (Peirce, "On Time and Thought", W 3, 68–69.)
Throughout the 1860s, the young but rapidly maturing Peirce was busy establishing a conceptual base camp and a technical supply line for a lifetime's intellectual adventures. In the long view, among best titles for the story, it all seems to have something to do with the
dynamics of inquiry. This broad subject area has a part given by natureand a part ruled by nurture. On first approach, one can see a question of articulationand a question of explanation:
:* What is needed to articulate the workings of the active form of representation that is known as "conscious experience"?
:* What is needed to account for the workings of the reflective discipline of
inquirythat is known as "science"?
The pursuit of these questions finds them entangled together and finally incomprehensible apart from each other, but for exposition's sake it is convenient to organize a study of Peirce's assault on the "summa" by following first the trails of thought that led him to develop a "theory of signs" ('
semiotic'), and tracking next the ways of thinking that led him to develop within it a "theory of inquiry", one that would be up to the task of saying 'how science works'.
Opportune points of departure for exploring the dynamics of representation, such as led to Peirce's theories of
inferenceand information, inquiryand signs, are those that he took for his own springboards. Perhaps the most significant influences radiate from points on parallel lines of inquiry in Aristotle's work, points where the intellectual forerunner focused on many of the same issues and even came to strikingly similar conclusions, at least about the best ways to begin. To keep on course to a more solid basis for understanding Peirce, it serves to consider the following "loci" in Aristotle:
:* The basic terminology of
psychology, in " On the Soul".
:* The founding description of
sign relations, in " On Interpretation";
In addition to the three elements of
inference, that Peirce would assay to be irreducible, Aristotleanalyzed several types of compound inference, most importantly the type known as 'reasoning by analogy' or 'reasoning from example', employing for the latter description the Greek word 'paradeigma', from which we get our word ' paradigm'.
Inquiry is a form of reasoning process; it institutes a specially conducted way, manner, style, or turn of thinking. Philosophers of the school that is commonly called 'pragmatic' hold with Peirce that "all thought is in signs" ["To say, therefore, that thought cannot happen in an instant, but requires a time, is but another way of saying that every thought must be interpreted in another, or that all thought is in signs." Peirce, 1868, "Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man", "Journal of Speculative Philosophy" vol. 2 (1868), pp. 103-114. Reprinted (CP 5.213-263, the quote is from para. 253). "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/question/qu-frame.htm Eprint] .] , where 'sign' is the word for the broadest conceivable variety of indices, semblances, signals, symbols, formulas, texts, and so on up the line, that might be imagined. Even intellectual concepts and mental ideas are held to be a special class of signs, corresponding to internal states of the thinking agent that both issue in and result from the interpretation of external signs.
The subsumption of inquiry within reasoning in general and the inclusion of thinking within the class of sign processes let us approach the subject of inquiry from two different perspectives:
:* The "
syllogistic" approach treats inquiry as a species of logical process, and is limited to those of its aspects that can be related to the most basic laws of inference.
:* The "sign-theoretic" approach views inquiry as a genus of "
semiosis", an activity taking place within the more general setting of sign relations and sign processes.
The distinction between signs denoting and objects denoted is critical to the discussion of Peirce's theory of signs.
In order to understand what a "sign" is we need to understand what a "
sign relation" is, for signhood is a way of being in relation, not a way of being in itself. In order to understand what a sign relation is we need to understand what a " triadic relation" is, for the role of a sign is constituted as one among three, where roles in general are distinct even when the things that fill them are not. In order to understand what a triadic relation is we need to understand what a "relation" is, and here there are traditionally two ways of understanding what a relation is, both of which are necessary if not sufficient to complete understanding, namely, the way of "extension" and the way of " intension". To these traditional approximations, Peirce adds a third way, the way of "information", including change of information, in order to integrate the other two approaches into a unified whole. For discussion of Peirce's approach to comprehension, denotation, correspondence, semiotic determination, and other important sign relations, see the main article on sign relation.
Sign relationsfor discussion of sign, object, and interpretant in terms of denotation, comprehension, correspondence, determination, and so forth.
Peirce held there are exactly three basic elements in semiosis (sign action):
#A "sign" (or "representamen") represents, in the broadest possible sense of "represents". It is something interpretable as saying something about something. It is not necessarily symbolic, linguistic, or artificial.
#An "object" (or "semiotic object") is a subject matter of a sign and an interpretant. It can be anything discussable or thinkable, a thing, event, relationship, quality, law, argument, etc., and can even be fictional, for instance Hamlet.Peirce (1909), A Letter to William James, EP 2, 498, viewable at the "Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms" ( [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Eprint] ) under [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/dynamicalobject.html Dynamical Object] ] All of those are special or partial objects. The object most accurately is the
universe of discourseto which the partial or special object belongs. [Peirce (1909), A Letter to William James, EP 2, 492, viewable at the "Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms" ( [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Eprint] ) under " [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/object.html Object] ".] For instance, a perturbation of Pluto's orbit is a sign about Pluto but ultimately not only about Pluto.
#An "interpretant" (or "interpretant sign") is the sign's more or less clarified meaning or ramification, a kind of form or idea of the difference which the sign's being true or undeceptive would make. (Peirce's sign theory concerns meaning in the broadest sense, including logical implication, not just the meanings of words as properly clarified by a dictionary.) The interpretant is a sign (a) of the object and (b) of the interpretant's "predecessor" (the interpreted sign) as being a sign of the same object. The interpretant is an "interpretation" in the sense of a "product" of an interpretive process or a content in which an interpretive relation culminates, though this product or content may itself be an act, a state of agitation, a conduct, etc. Such is what is meant in saying that the sign stands "for" the object "to" the interpretant. Some of the understanding needed by the mind depends on familiarity with the object. In order to know what a given sign denotes, the mind needs some experience of that sign's object collaterally to that sign or sign system, and in that context Peirce speaks of collateral experience, collateral observation, collateral acquaintance, all in much the same terms. [See pp. 404-409 in "Pragmatism", "The Essential Peirce". Ten quotes on collateral observation from Peirce provided by Joseph Ransdell can be viewed [http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=57101#57101 here] at peirce-l's Lyris archive. Note: Ransdell's quotes from the "Collected Papers" vol. 8, pp. 178-179, are also in "The Essential Peirce", vol. 2, pp. 493-4, which gives their date as 1909; and his quote from "Collected Papers", vol. 8, p. 183, is also in "The Essential Peirce", vol. 2, pp. 495-6, which gives its date as 1909".]
The object determines (not in the deterministic sense, but in a sense of "specializes," "bestimmt" [See " [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/writings/v2/w2/w2_16/v2_16.htm What Is Meant by 'Determined'] ", P 28: "Journal of Speculative Philosophy" 2 (1868):190-91. Reprinted (CP6.625-630).] ) the sign to determine another sign -- the interpretant -- to be related to the object "as the sign is related to the object", hence the interpretant, fulfilling its function as sign of the object, determines a further interpretant sign. The process is logically structured to perpetuate itself.
For further discussion of sign, object, and interpretant, see
Sign relationsand the main article Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce).
Classes of signs
Three sign typologies -- among others -- stand out in Peirce's work. They depend respectively on (I) the sign itself, (II) the sign's relation to its denoted object, and (III) the sign's relation to its interpretant. The sign typologies are filled out by embodiments of each of three phenomenological categories, a trio of embodiments by each of these: (I) the sign itself, (II) the sign's manner of denoting the object, and (III) the manner attributed by the interpretant to the sign's denoting of the object.
I. "Qualisign, sinsign, legisign" (also called" tone, token, type," and also called "potisign, actisign, famisign"): This typology emphasizes the sign itself in terms of the phenomenological category which it embodies -- the qualisign is a quality, a possibility, a "First"; the sinsign is a reaction or resistance, a singular object, an actual event or fact, a "Second"; and the legisign is a habit, a rule, a semiotic relation, a "Third".
II. "Icon, index, symbol": This typology, the best known one, emphasizes the different ways in which the sign refers to its object -- the icon (also called semblance or likeness) by a quality of its own, the index by real connection to its object, and the symbol by a habit or rule for its interpretant.
III. "Rheme, dicisign, argument" (also called "sumisign, dicisign, suadisign," also "seme, pheme, delome," and regarded as very broadened versions of the traditional "term, proposition, argument"): This typology emphasizes that which the interpretant represents to be the sign's way of referring to its object -- the rheme is a sign interpreted to represent its object in respect of quality; the dicisign is a sign interpreted to represent its object in respect of fact; and the argument is a sign interpreted to represent its object in respect of habit or law.
Every sign falls under one class or another within (I) "and" within (II) "and" within (III). Thus each of the three typologies is a three-valued parameter for every sign. The three parameters are not independent of each other; many co-classifications aren't found, for reasons pertaining to the lack of either habit-taking or singular reaction in a quality, and the lack of habit-taking in a singular reaction. The result is not 27 but instead ten classes of signs fully specified at this level of analysis.
Modes of inference
Borrowing a brace of concepts from
Aristotle, Peirce examined three fundamental modes of reasoning that play a role in inquiry, processes that are currently known as " abductive", " deductive", and "inductive" inference.
In the roughest terms, abduction is what we use to generate a likely
hypothesisor an initial diagnosisin response to a phenomenonof interest or a problemof concern, while deduction is used to clarify, to derive, and to explicate the relevant consequences of the selected hypothesis, and induction is used to test the sum of the predictions against the sum of the data.
Peirce's recipe for pragmatic thinking, called both "
pragmatism" and " pragmaticism", is recapitulated in several versions of the so-called " pragmatic maxim". Here is one of his more emphatic reiterations of it:
Consider what effects that might "conceivably" have practical bearings you "conceive" the objects of your "conception" to have. Then, your "conception" of those effects is the whole of your "conception" of the object. [See p. 481 in Peirce, C. S. (1905), "Issues of Pragmaticism", The "Monist", vol. 15, pp. 481-499, "Google Book Search Beta" [http://books.google.com/books?id=j6oLAAAAIAAJ&pg=1#PRA3-PA481,M1 Eprint] , "Internet Archive" [http://www.archive.org/details/monistquart15hegeuoft Eprint] . Reprinted (CP 5.438-463, see 438), ("Charles S. Peirce: Selected Writings", pp. 203-226)]
William James, among others, regarded two of Peirce's papers, " [http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html The Fixation of Belief] " (1877) and "" (1878) as pragmatism's origin. Peirce conceived pragmatism as a method for clarifying the meaning of difficult ideas through application of the pragmatic maxim. He differed from William James and the early John Dewey, in some of their tangential enthusiasms, in being decidedly more rationalistic and realistic, in several senses of those terms, throughout the preponderance of his own philosophical moods.
Peirce's pragmatism is a method of sorting out conceptual confusions by equating the meaning of any concept with the conceivable operational or practical consequences of whatever it is which the concept portrays. This pragmatism bears no resemblance to "vulgar" pragmatism, which misleadingly connotes a ruthless and
Machiavellian search for mercenary or political advantage. Rather, Peirce's pragmatic maxim is the heart of his pragmatism as a method of experimentational mental reflection [Peirce (1902), CP 5.13 note 1] arriving at conceptions in terms of conceivable confirmatory and disconfirmatory circumstances -- a method hospitable to the generation of explanatory hypotheses, and conducive to the employment and improvement of verification [See CP 1.34 [http://www.textlog.de/4220.html Eprint] (in "The Spirit of Scholasticism"), where Peirce attributes the success of modern science not so much to a novel interest in verification as to the improvement of verification.] to test the truth of putative knowledge. As such a method, pragmatism leads beyond the usual duo of foundational alternatives, namely::* Deduction from self-evident truths, or " rationalism";
:* Induction from experiential phenomena, or "
His approach is distinct from
foundationalism, empiricist or otherwise, as well as from coherentism, by the following three dimensions:
:* Active process of theory generation, with no prior assurance of truth;
:* Subsequent application of the contingent theory, aimed toward developing its logical and practical consequences;
:* Evaluation of the provisional theory's utility for the "
anticipation" of future experience, and that in dual senses of the word: " prediction" and "control". Peirce's identification of these three dimensions serves to flesh out an approach to inquiry far more solid than the standard image of simple inductive generalization as describing a pattern observed in phenomena. Peirce's pragmatism was the first time the scientific methodwas proposed as an epistemologyfor philosophical questions.
A theory that proves itself more successful than its rivals in predicting and controlling our world is said to be nearer the truth. This is an operational notion of truth employed by scientists. Peirce held, that the scientific method is the best for theoretical questions but not always better than tradition, instinct, etc., for time-sensitive practical questions, but will in the long run produce the most secure results on which action can ultimately be based.
In "", Peirce discusses three grades of clearness of conception:
:1. Clearness of the familiar conception. :2. Clearness as of a definition's parts, the clearness in virtue of which logicians call a concept or definition "distinct". :3. Clearness in virtue of clearness of conceivable consequences of the object as conceived of. Here he introduced that which he later called the Pragmatic Maxim.
By way of example of how to clarify conceptions, he addresses truth and the real as questions of the presuppositions of reasoning in general. In clearness's second grade, he defines truth as a sign's correspondence to its object, and the real as the object of such correspondence, such that truth and the real are independent of that which you or I or any definite community of researchers think. Then in clearness's third grade (the pragmatic grade), he defines the truth as that which would be reached, sooner or later but still inevitably, by research adequately prolonged, such that the real does depend on that final opinion -- a dependence to which he appeals in theoretical arguments elsewhere, for instance for the long-term validity of the rule of induction"That the rule of induction will hold good in the long run may be deduced from the principle that reality is only the object of the final opinion to which sufficient investigation would lead", in Peirce, C. S. (1878 April), "The Probability of Induction", p. 718 in "Popular Science Monthly", vol. 12, pp. 705-718. Reprinted ("Chance, Love, and Logic", pp. 82-105), (CP 2.669-693), ("Philosophical Writings of Peirce", pp. 174-189), (W 3, 290-305), (EP 1, 155-169). "Internet Archive" " [http://www.archive.org/details/popscimonthly12yoummiss Popular Science Monthly 12] ".] . Peirce argues that even to argue against the independence and discoverability of truth and the real is to presuppose that there is, about that very question under argument, a truth with just such independence and discoverability. For more on Peirce's theory of truth, see the Peirce section in Pragmatic Theory of Truth.
Peirce's pragmatism, as method and theory of "definitions and the clearness of ideas", is a department within his theory of inquiry [See [http://www.cspeirce.com/homepage/ransdell.htm Joseph Ransdell] 's comments and his tabular list of titles of Peirce's proposed list of memoirs in 1902 for his Carnegie application, [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/intro/l75intro.htm Eprint] ] , which he variously called "Methodeutic" and "Philosophical or Speculative Rhetoric". He applied his pragmatism as a method throughout his work. For further discussion see the main articles
Pragmaticismand Pragmatic maxim.
Theory of inquiry
Peirce extracted the pragmatic model or
theoryof inquiryfrom its raw materials in classical logic and refined it in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic to address problems about the nature of scientific reasoning.
Abduction, deduction, and induction typically work in a cyclic fashion, systematically functioning to reduce the uncertainties and difficulties that initiated the inquiry, and in this way, to the extent that inquiry is successful, leading to an increase in the
knowledgeor skills, in other words an augmentationin the competenceor performanceof the agent or community engaged in the inquiry.
In the pragmatic way of thinking in terms of conceivable consequences, every thing has a
purpose, and a thing's purpose is the first thing that we should try to note about it. Inquiry's purpose is to reduce doubtand lead to a state of belief, which a person in that state will usually call ' knowledge' or ' certainty'. The three kinds of inference, insofar as they contribute and collaborate toward the end of inquiry, describe a cycle understandable only as a whole, and none of the three makes complete sense in isolation from the others.
For instance, abduction's purpose is to generate guesses that deduction can explicate and that induction can evaluate. This places a mild but meaningful
constrainton the production of hypotheses, since it is not just any wild guess at explanationthat submits itself to reason and bows out when defeated in a match with reality. Likewise, each of the other types of inferencerealizes its purpose only in accord with its proper role in the whole cycle of inquiry. No matter how much it may be necessary to study these processes in abstraction from each other, the integrityof inquiry places strong limitations on the effective modularity of its principal components.
The ensuing question, 'What sort of
constraint, exactly, does pragmatic thinking of the end of inquiry place on our guesses?', is generally recognized as the problem of 'giving a rule to abduction'. Peirce's overall answer was the pragmatic maxim. In 1903 Peirce called the question of pragmatism "the question of the logic of abduction" [Peirce, C. S. (1903), "Pragmatism -- The Logic of Abduction", CP 5.195-205, especially para. 196. [http://www.textlog.de/7663.html Eprint] . ] .
Peirce characterized the scientific method as followsPeirce, C.S. (1908), "", "Hibbert Journal" vol. 7, pp. 90-112. Reprinted (CP 6.452-485), ("Selected Writings", pp. 358-379), (EP 2, 434-450), ("Peirce on Signs", pp. 260-278). "Internet Archive" [http://www.archive.org/details/hibbertjournal07londuoft "Hibbert Journal" 7] .] : 1. Abduction (or retroduction). Generation of explanatory hypothesis. From abduction, Peirce distinguishes induction as inferring, on the basis of tests, the proportion of truth in the hypothesis. Every inquiry, whether into ideas, brute facts, or norms and laws, arises in the effort to resolve the wonder of surprising observations in the given realm or realms. All explanatory content of theories is reached by way of abduction, the most insecure among modes of inference. Induction as a process is far too slow for that job, so economy of research demands abduction, whose modicum of success depends on one's being somehow attuned to nature, by dispositions learned and, some of them, likely inborn. Abduction has general inductive justification in that it works often enough and that nothing else works, at least not quickly enough when science is already properly rather slow, the work of indefinitely many generations. Given that abduction relies on inborn or developed instinct attuned to nature and is driven by the need to economize the inquiry process, its explanatory hypotheses should be optimally simple in the sense of "natural" (for which Peirce cites Galileo and which Peirce distinguishes from "logically simple"). Given that abduction is insecure guesswork, it should have consequences with conceivable practical bearing leading at least to mental tests, and, in science, lending themselves to scientific testing.
2. Deduction. Analysis of hypothesis and deduction of its consequences in order to test the hypothesis. Two stages::i. Explication. Logical analysis of the hypothesis in order to render it as distinct as possible.:ii. Demonstration (or deductive argumentation). Deduction of hypothesis's consequence. Corollarial or, if needed, Theorematic.
3. Induction. The long-run validity of the rule of induction is deducible from the principle (presuppositional to reasoning in general) that the real "is only the object of the final opinion to which sufficient investigation would lead". In other words, if there were something to which an inductive process involving ongoing tests or observations would "never" lead, then that thing would not be real. Three stages::i. Classification. Classing objects of experience under general ideas.:ii. Probation (or direct Inductive Argumentation): Crude (the enumeration of instances) or Gradual (new estimate of proportion of truth in the hypothesis after each test). Gradual Induction is Qualitative or Quantitative; if Quantitative, then dependent on measurements, or on statistics, or on countings.:iii. Sentential Induction. "...which, by Inductive reasonings, appraises the different Probations singly, then their combinations, then makes self-appraisal of these very appraisals themselves, and passes final judgment on the whole result".
In ontology, Peirce declared himself Scholastic Realist about generals early on. Eventually he embraced Scholastic Realism about modalities (possibility, necessity, etc.) as well, holding that the modalities are real and not mere functions of one's ignorance.
Peirce believed in God, and characterized such belief as founded in an instinct explorable in musing over the worlds of ideas, brute facts, and evolving norms -- and it is a belief in God not as an "actual" or "existent" being (in Peirce's sense of those words), but all the same as a "real" being.Peirce in his 1906 "Answers to Questions concerning my Belief in God", CP 6.495, [http://users.xplornet.com/~gnox/CSPgod.htm Eprint] , reprinted in part as "The Concept of God" in "Philosophical Writings of Peirce", J. Buchler, ed., 1940, pp. 375-378:
I will also take the liberty of substituting "reality" for "existence." This is perhaps overscrupulosity; but I myself always use "exist" in its strict philosophical sense of "react with the other like things in the environment." Of course, in that sense, it would be fetichism to say that God "exists." The word "reality," on the contrary, is used in ordinary parlance in its correct philosophical sense. [....] I define the "real" as that which holds its characters on such a tenure that it makes not the slightest difference what any man or men may have "thought" them to be, or ever will have "thought" them to be, here using thought to include, imagining, opining, and willing (as long as forcible "means" are not used); but the real thing's characters will remain absolutely untouched"] . In "" (1908), Peirce sketches, for God's reality, an argument to a hypothesis of God as the Necessary Being, a hypothesis which he describes in terms of how it would tend to develop and become compelling in musement and inquiry by a normal person who is led, by the hypothesis, to consider as being purposed the features of the worlds of ideas, brute facts, and evolving norms, such that the thought of such purposefulness will "stand or fall with the hypothesis"; meanwhile, according to Peirce, the hypothesis, in supposing an "infinitely incomprehensible" being, starts off at odds with its own nature as a purportively true conception, and so, no matter how much the hypothesis grows, it both (A) inevitably regards itself as partly true, partly vague, and as continuing to define itself without limit, and (B) inevitably has God appearing likewise vague but growing, though God as the Necessary Being is not vague or growing; but the hypothesis will hold it to be "more" false to say the opposite, that God is purposeless.
In physical metaphysics, Peirce held the view, which he called
objective idealism, that "that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" [Peirce, "The Architecture of Theories"," The Monist" 1 (1891), p [http://books.google.com/books?id=waoLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP19&dq=editions:0-FEObxPhyNOcbY9PVSxXar#PPA161-IA2,M1 p. 161] –176, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=waoLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP19&dq=editions:0-FEObxPhyNOcbY9PVSxXar#PPA170,M1 p. 170] , via Google Books). Reprinted (CP 6.7–34) and (EP 1, 285-297, see p. 293).] . Peirce asserted the reality of (1) chance (his tychist view), (2) mechanical necessity (anancist view), and (3) that which he called the law of love (agapist view). They embody his categories Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, respectively. He held that fortuitous variation (which he also called "sporting"), mechanical necessity, and creative love are the three modes of evolution (modes called "tychasm", "anancasm", and "agapasm" [See "tychism", "tychasm", "tychasticism", and the rest, at the "Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms" [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Eprint] .] ) of the universe and its parts. His found his conception of agapasm embodied in Lamarckian evolution; the overall idea in any case is that of evolution tending toward an end or goal, and it could also be the evolution of a mind or a society; it is the kind of evolution which manifests workings of mind in some general sense. He said that overall he was a synechist, holding with reality of continuity. [Peirce, "Evolutionary Love", The "Monist", vol. 3, pp. 176-200 (1893), published as the last paper in a series of five. Reprinted (CP 6.278-317), (EP 1, 352-372). "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/evolove/evolove.htm Eprint] ]
cience of review
Peirce did considerable work over a period of years on the classification of sciences (including mathematics). His classifications are of interest both as an accomplished polymath's survey of science in his time, and also as a rough map for navigating his philosophy. His ultimate broadest classification of the sciences was a three-way division into Science of Discovery, Science of Review, and Practical Science. He classed the work and theory of classification of science in Science of Review. His examples for Science of Review included Humboldt's "Cosmos", Comte's "Philosophie positive", and Spencer's "Synthetic Philosophy". [Peirce (1903), CP 1.182 [http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/peirce/cl_o_sci_03.htm Eprint] ]
* CP n.m = "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce", vol. n, paragraph m.
* EP n, m = "The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings", vol. n, page m.
* NEM n, m = "The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce", vol. n, page m.
* W n, m = "Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition", vol. n, page m.For more information on editions, see References below, and also
Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography#Standard editions.
* ^ Anellis, Irving H. (1995), "Peirce Rustled, Russell Pierced: How Charles Peirce and Bertrand Russell Viewed Each Other's Work in Logic, and an Assessment of Russell's Accuracy and Role in the Historiography of Logic", "Modern Logic", 5, 270–328. "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/anellis/csp&br.htm Eprint] .
Aristotle, "The Categories," Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 1–109 in "Aristotle, Volume 1", Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1938.
* Aristotle, "On Interpretation," Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 111–179 in "Aristotle, Volume 1", Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1938.
* Aristotle, "
Prior Analytics," Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181–531 in "Aristotle, Volume 1", Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann, 1938.
* Boole, George (1854), "An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities", Macmillan. Reprinted 1958 with corrections, New York:
* Atkin, Albert (2006), " [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ Peirce's Theory of Signs] " in the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
* ^ Brady, Geraldine (2000), "From Peirce to Skolem: A Neglected Chapter in the History of Logic", North-Holland/Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, Netherlands,
* ^ Brent, Joseph (1998), "Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life". Revised and enlarged edition, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
* Burch, Robert (2001), " [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ Charles Sanders Peirce] " in the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Revised, Summer 2006.
* Dewey, John (1910), "How We Think", Lexington MA:
D.C. Heath. Reprinted 1991, Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books.
Ivor Grattan-Guinness(2000) "The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870-1940". Princeton Univ. Press.
* Haack, Susan (1998), "Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate". Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
* Houser, Nathan (1989), "The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers", "Fourth Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies", Perpignan, France, 1989. Published, pp. 1259–1268 in "Signs of Humanity", vol. 3, Michel Balat and Janice Deledalle-Rhodes (eds.), Gérard Deledalle (gen. ed.), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 1992. "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/houser/fortunes.htm Eprint] .
* ^ Houser, Nathan, Roberts, Don D., and Van Evra, James (eds., 1997), "Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce", Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.
* Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert (1889), " [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058;query=toc An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon] ", Oxford UK:
Oxford University Press. Reprinted 1991.
* Mac Lane, Saunders (1971) "Categories for the Working Mathematician", New York: Springer-Verlag. Second edition, 1998.
* ^ Misak, Cheryl J. (ed., 2004), "The Cambridge Companion to Peirce", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
* Peirce, C.S. (1877), " [http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html The Fixation of Belief] ", "Popular Science Monthly 12": 1–15. Reprinted CP 5.358-387.
* Peirce, C.S. (1878), "", "Popular Science Monthly 12": 286–302. Reprinted CP 5.388-410.
* Peirce, C.S. (1897), "The Logic of Relatives", The "Monist", vol. 7, p [http://books.google.com/books?id=pa0LAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA554&#PPA161,M1 p. 161] -217 (via Google Books Beta, users outside the USA may not yet be able to gain full access). Reprinted CP3.456-552.
* Peirce, C.S. (1899), "F.R.L." (First Rule of Logic), unpaginated manuscript. Reprinted CP 1.135–140. [http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/peirce/frl_99.htm Eprint] .
* Peirce, C.S. (1902), "Application of C.S. Peirce to the Executive Committee of the Carnegie Institution, July 15, 1902." Published in Eisele, Carolyn, ed. (1976) "Parts of Carnegie Application (L75)" in "The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, Vol. 4, Mathematical Philosophy". The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton Publishers: 13–73. "Logic, Regarded As Semeiotic (The Carnegie application of 1902)", Joseph Ransdell, ed. (1998), "Arisbe" [http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/l75/l75.htm Eprint] , includes complete submitted application plus drafts labeled and interpolated by the editor.
* Peirce, C.S. (1931-1935, 1958), "Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce", vols. 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.), vols. 7–8, Arthur W. Burks (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931–1935, 1958.
* Peirce, C.S (1976), "The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce", 4 volumes in 5, Carolyn Eisele (ed.), Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands, 1976. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1976.
* Peirce, C.S. (1981-), "Writings of Charles S. Peirce, A Chronological Edition", Peirce Edition Project (eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN, 1981–.
* Peirce, C.S. (1992), "The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. 1 (1867–1893)", Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel, eds. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
* Peirce, C.S. (1998), "The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2 (1893–1913)", Peirce Edition Project, eds. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
* Robin, Richard S. (1967) "Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce". Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts Press. PEP [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/robin/robin.htm Eprint] .
* Taylor, Barry N., ed. (2001), " [http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf The International System of Units, NIST Special Publication 330] ". Washington DC: Superintendent of Documents.
* van Heijenoort, Jean (1967), "Logic as Language and Logic as Calculus," "Synthese 17": 324–30.
A bibliography of Peirce's works may be found at the above location.
Information, inquiry, logic, semiotics
Laws of Form
Logic of information
* Rhema, Rheme
Sole sufficient operator
Theory of relations
Pragmatic theory of truth
* [http://www.cspeirce.com/ Arisbe: The Peirce Gateway] , Joseph Ransdell (ed.)
* [http://www.peircesociety.org/ Charles S. Peirce Society] :* [http://www.peircesociety.org/transactions.html Transactions]
* [http://www.peirce.org/ Charles S. Peirce Studies]
* [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Peirce_Charles.html Charles Sanders Peirce] , MacTutor History of Mathematics, O'Connor & Robertson
* [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/ Commens: Virtual Centre for Peirce Studies] , University of Helsinki, Bergman & Paavola (eds.):* [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/dictionary.html Dictionary of Peirce Terms] :* [http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/peircetexts.html Peirce's Writings Online]
* [http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/ Digital Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce]
* [http://www.unav.es/gep/ Grupo de Estudios Peirceanos] , Jaime Nubiola (ed.)
* [http://www.wyttynys.net/ His Glassy Essence:] Autobiography of Charles S. Peirce, Kenneth Laine Ketner
* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] , Fieser & Dowden (eds.):* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/PeirceBi.htm Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914)] , Albert Atkin:* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/PeirceAr.htm C.S. Peirce's Architectonic Philosophy] , Albert Atkin:* [http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/PeircePr.htm C.S. Peirce's Pragmatism] , Albert Atkin
* [http://www.lichtensteiger.de/peirce.html Peirce, Charles Sanders (1839-1914)] , Ralph Lichtensteiger
* [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ Peirce Edition Project] :* [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep1/intro/ep1intro.htm Introduction to "Essential Peirce", vol. 1] , Nathan Houser:* [http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep2/intro/ep2intro.htm Introduction to "Essential Peirce", vol. 2] , Nathan Houser
* [http://www.pragmatism.org/ Pragmatism Cybrary] , John R. Shook (ed.):* [http://www.pragmatism.org/genealogy/cambridge.htm Cambridge School of Pragmaticm]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] , Edward N. Zalta (ed.):* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ Charles Sanders Peirce] , Robert Burch:* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-logic/ Peirce's Logic] , Eric Hammer"An [http://www.unav.es/users/Nupedia_Charles_S.html earlier version] of this article, by Jaime Nubiola, was posted at Nupedia."
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Charles Peirce — Charles Sanders Peirce um 1870 Charles Sanders Peirce (* 10. September 1839 in Cambridge, Massachusetts; † 19. April 1914 in Milford, Pennsylvania) war ein US amerikanischer Mathematiker … Deutsch Wikipedia
Charles Peirce — noun United States philosopher and logician; pioneer of pragmatism (1839 1914) • Syn: ↑Peirce, ↑Charles Sanders Peirce • Instance Hypernyms: ↑philosopher, ↑logician, ↑logistician … Useful english dictionary
Charles Sanders Peirce — B … Wikipedia
Charles Sanders Peirce — Charles Sanders Peirce. Charles Sanders Peirce (pronunciado /ˈpɜrs/ purse en inglés ) Cambridge, Massach … Wikipedia Español
Charles S. Peirce — Charles Sanders Peirce Charles Sanders Peirce Philosophe américain XIXe siècle XXe siècle … Wikipédia en Français
Charles Sanders Peirce — Philosophe américain XIXe siècle XXe siècle … Wikipédia en Français
Peirce — Charles Sanders Peirce Charles Sanders Peirce Philosophe américain XIXe siècle XXe siècle … Wikipédia en Français
Peirce — may mean:*Benjamin Peirce, American mathematician, author of an article on rejection of data outliers Peirce s Criterion, and father of Charles Peirce *Bill Peirce (born 1938), economist, Professor Emeritus at Case Western Reserve University, and … Wikipedia
Charles Pearce — may refer to: Charles Thomas Pearce (1815–1883), English physician and opponent to mandatory vaccination Charles Edward Pearce (1842–1902), United States Congressman from Missouri Charles E. M. Pearce (born 1940), New Zealand mathematician… … Wikipedia
Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography — C. S. Peirce articles General: Charles Sanders Peirce Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography Philosophical: Categories (Peirce) Semiotic elements and classes of signs (Peirce) Pragmatic maxim • Pragmaticism… … Wikipedia