Cf: On Reading Peirce • Discussion 2
Re: Peirce List ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/thrd1.html#00021
::: Gary Richmond ( https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-09/msg00029.html
Well, it's true, all science is under construction.
But not everything under construction is a science.
True. But I'd suggest that there is no good reason to block the way of
inquiry of those who think that phaneroscopy, for example, may prove to
be a science even if, at present, it remains in my view but a science egg.
That it is not yet clear whether it can be fully developed as a science
(I believe that there is good to think that it can) is, for me at least,
one of the reasons why we're having this slow read.
So, those who think phaneroscopy (involving the doctrine of categories)
is worth looking further into include not only André De Tienne, but to
cite again a recent book on the topic, Richard Kenneth Atkins' 2018
monograph, Charles S. Peirce's Phenomenology : Analysis and Consciousness
You know me well enough to know I have nothing against neologisms —
I used to coin 5 or 6 every morning before breakfast … but I'm much
better now — and don't get me wrong, I fully sympathize with Peirce's
desire to distinguish his take on phenomenology from Hegel's mis-takes.
And I'm totally copacetic with using the word “inquiry” to describe any
activity aimed at fixing belief, at least, in broad brush among friends.
But it's one toke over the line if we call any form of inquiry a science,
for then we'd have Tenacioscopy, Authorioscopy, Apriorioscopy to counter
on a recurring basis, not that we don't already have to deal with them
under hosts and legions of the usual suspect old-fangled paleologisms.
So it's gotta stop somewhere — and for that we have to acknowledge
critical criteria in our critique of what makes inquiry scientific.
I see I'm one neologism short of my old quota —
but I'll save oöscience for next time …