MS 427a (1902) - Minute Logic - Chapter II - Section I

ReadAboutContentsHelp
Classification of the Sciences

Pages

1
Complete

1

CHAPTER II. PRELOGICAL NOTIONS. Section 1. Classification of the Sciences.

Sundry reflections not scientifically logical can very well be made at once, before engaging in the systematic study of logic. They will prove subsequently to be of no little advantage. Preliminary reflections are well enough before beginning any business; especially if the proper method of pursuing it Poe?? difficult to determine, with logic. They are more important to the study of logic than that reason alone would account for; and one of the very benefits that will accrue from these reflections is to show us why they have particular utility here.

When the best method of doing a thing is in doubt, one of the best aids toward getting set upon the right path is to consider what need of doing it there is. This is axiomatic. Since, then, logic teaches no how to attain truth, the need of a systematic doctrine of logic will best appear by considering it's relation to the different sciences, which

Last edit over 5 years ago by terriertle17
2
Complete

2

Logic II 2

are the different departments of the endeavor to attain the truth, and by considering the relations of these different endeavors to one another, particularly with reference to the aid that they afford one another. This is the need to us of the inquiry I propose here to enter upon, that of the natural classification of the sciences.

I do not know how many Many have been the attempts there have been to make at a general classification of the sciences. Dr. Richardson's little book upon the subject * is quite incomplete, only enumerating one hundred and forty-six systems. They are naturally many, because not only are their purposes various, but what the conceive their conceptions of a science to be, are divergent, and their notions of what classification is are still more so. Many of these schemes introduce sciences which nobody ever heard of; so that they seem to aim at classifying, not actually existent sciences, but possible sciences. It would seem to be A somewhat presumptuous undertaking , to classify is that of classifying

* Classification By Ernest Cushing Richardson. 1901.

Last edit over 5 years ago by noamsol
3
Complete

3

Logic II 3

Nature of Natural Classification

the science of the remote future. On the other hand, if classifications are to be restricted to sciences actually existing at the time the classifications are made, the classifications certainly ought to differ from age to age. If Plato's classification was satisfactory in his day, it cannot be good today; and if it is, it only shows be good now, the inference will be that it was bad when he proposed it.

It is plain that This business of classifying sciences is not one to be undertaken precipitately or off-hand, We that is plain ought not to We should not begin the execution of the task until we have well considered, first, what classification is; and secondly, what science is.

What mode of classifying anything is to be preferred depends entirely upon what use the classification is to be put to. For example, the alphabetic arrangement is certainly the best for the index of a book; and readers will never cease to curse the writers, a German [mostly?] most likely, -- who

Last edit over 5 years ago by noamsol
4
Complete

4

Logic II 4

offers an elaborate index raisonné as a substitute for an alphabetical arrangement although yet no arrangement can be worse that an alphabetical one for any other more rational purpose. The 146 systems mentioned above as dealt with in Dr. Richardson's book do not include classifications for the purpose of reference to a library of which he gives adds a separate catalogue of 173 systems. The 146, like the classification which we desire, were given as having each a scientific value, 00 as being the one true and natural classification. The first question, then, that is seems well to consider (remembering that the [subjective?] classification is one of the topics of logic to be dealt with more scientifically in its proper place, and that I can have only skim the surface of it) is, what is meant by a true and natural class? A great many logicians say there is no such thing; and, what is strange, even many students of taxonomic sciences not only follow this opinion, but allow it a great

Last edit over 5 years ago by noamsol
5
Complete

5

Logic II 5

part in determining the conclusions of the botany and zoology. The reason they hold cause of their holding this opinion is that on has two factors; the one hand firstly, that they understand attach a metaphysical signification to the term natural or real class, and secondly that they have embraced a system of metaphysics according to which there which allows them to believe in is no such thing as that which they have defined a real or natural class to be. Far be it from me to wish to close any avenue by which truth may be reached arrived at; and if botanists and zoologists come to the conclusion that botany and zoology must rest upon metaphysics, I have not a word of objection to make. Only I can tell them that metaphysics is a most difficult science, presenting more pitfalls for the uninformed than almost any, which a mere amateur at it must should would be foolish to fancy that he could escape. Therefore, if botany and zoology must perforce rest upon metaphysics, by all means let this metaphysics be recognized as an explicit branch of those sciences, and be treated in a

Last edit over 5 years ago by noamsol
Displaying pages 1 - 5 of 337 in total