DOCSLIB.ORG

Theory and Decision Theory and Decision Library

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theory and Decision Theory and Decision Library THEORY AND DECISION THEORY AND DECISION LIBRARY AN INTERNATIONAL SERIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY AND METHODOLOGY OF THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Editors GERALD EBERLEIN, University of Technology, Munich WERNER LEINFELLNER, University of Nebraska Editorial Advisory Board: K. BORCH, Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration M. BUN G E, McGill University J. S. COLEMAN, University of Chicago w. KROEBER-RIEL, University of Saarland A. RAPOPORT, University of Toronto A. SEN, Oxford University W. STEGMULLER, University of Munich K. SZANIAWSKI, University of Warsaw L. TONDL, Prague A. TVERSKY, Stanford University VOLUME 50 THEORY AND DECISION Essays in Honor of Werner Leinfellner Edited by GERALD L. EBERLEIN Institute for Social Sciences, Technical University of Munich, F.R. G. and HAL BERGHEL Department of Computer Science, University of Arkansas, U.S.A. D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY ~. A MEMBER OF THE KLUWER " ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP DORDRECHT/BOSTON/LANCASTER/TOKYO Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Theory and decision. (Theory and decision library; v. 50) Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Social sciences-Philosophy. 2. Social sciences-Methodology. 3. Social history. 4. Leinfellner, Werner. I. Leinfellner, Werner. II. Eberlein, Gerald. III. Berghel, Hal. IV. Series. H61.T466 1987 300'.1 87-28487 ISBN-13:978-90-277-2227-0 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-3719-2 DOl: 10.107/978-94-009-3719-2 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland. Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers 101 Philip Drive, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.o. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, Holland. All Rights Reserved © 1988 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland Soft cover reprint of the hard cover 1 st edition 1988 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction ix PART I / PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC ROBERT AUDI / On Some Limits and Resources of Common- Sense Psychology 3 JOHN POLLOCK / Probability and Proportions 29 PHILIP HUGL Y AND CHARLES SA YW ARD / Why Sub- stitutional Quantification Does Not Express Existence 67 PART II / METHODOLOGY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES MARIO BUNGE / Ideology and Science 79 OLE HAGEN / Some Imperfections in the Scientific Com- munication System and a Possible Remedy 91 GERALD L. EBERLEIN AND O. P. OBERMEIER / Value­ Free vs. Value-Conscious Social Sciences 107 PART III/ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL ISSUES LUCIAN KERN AND HANS-GEORG RADER / Public Bads and Socio-Moral Reasoning: The Case of the New Social Movements in Germany 139 H. L. BERGHEL AND D. L. SALLACH / The Impact of Computers on Job Opportunities: An Analysis of Employ- mentTrends, 1972-1982 169 KARL BORCH IInsurance Without Utility Theory 191 VI TABLE OF CONTENTS PART IV / GAME AND DECISION THEORY MAURICE ALLAIS / Three Theorems on the Theory of Cardinal Utility and Random Choice 205 STEVEN J. BRAMS, DAN S. FELSENTHAL, AND ZEEV MAOZ / Chairman Paradoxes Under Approval Voting 223 JOHN C. HARSANYI / Some Recent Developments in Game Theory 235 THOMAS A. COWAN AND PETER C. FISHBURN / Founda- tions of Preference 261 HEINZ J. SKALA / What Does Arrow's Impossibility Theorem Tell Us? 273 HANS W. GOTTINGER / Choice Processes, Computability and Complexity: Computable Choice Functions 287 Curriculum Vitae Werner Leinfellner 301 Werner Leinfellner: Selected Bibliograph 303 Index of Names 311 Index of Subjects 315 PREFACE This collection of articles contains contributions from a few of Werner Leinfellner's many friends and colleagues. Some of them are former students of Werner's. Others were colleagues of his at various American and European universities. Further, some have come to know Werner through his research, his long-standing editorship of Theory and Deci­ sion and his extensive participation in international conferences and congresses. The following articles are new to this volume. The areas covered are those in which Werner continues to play an active professional role. We offer them as a tribute to the many and multi-faceted contributions to the scientific enterprise for which Werner Leinfellner is so widely known. We believe such a festschrift to be fitting and long overdue. Because of the breadth of Werner's professional associations, it was difficult to select representatives from among his many spheres of influence. We apologize to the many scholars who could not be in­ cluded because of time and space considerations. Finally, we wish to express appreciation to Dean John Guilds of the University of Arkansas for providing financial support early on in the evolution of this project, to Jennifer Bauman for her bravura performance in copy-editing the manuscripts, and to our publisher at Reidel for bringing this volume to press. G. EBERLEIN H.BERGHEL vii INTRODUCTION In the late sixties the controversy between objectivism and subjec­ tivism in the English-speaking countries subsided, as did the so-called Positivismusstreit in the German-speaking Western democracies. The latter term refers on the one hand to the dispute between critical rationalism, frequently designated as "positivism" in Germany, and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School on the other. The objectivism/subjectivism controversy had shown that there was only an apparent dualistic alternative between the objective methodol­ ogy of "hard" empirical sciences and the subjectivistic methodology of "soft" action sciences and hermeneutics. In fact, the issue was, and still is, one of a gradual difference based on the decision as to whether to recognize the qualitative characteristics of the human subject matter as well. Today we find, not grand dualism, but rather detailed disagreements over theory and method, disagreements which cannot be reduced to anyone pattern and which cannot be easily resolved .... The two opposing theories turn out to be supplementary, each important in its own way and each equally scientific. I And Diesing concludes: What remains of the philosophical argument are two types of theory (for example, game theory and learning theory) which are both useful, both scientific, and frequently equivalent. Choice between them by scientists can be made on empirical grounds rather than on the grounds developed in the philosophical controversy.2 The positivism controversy, however, maintained that there was a fundamental, even dogmatic difference between Popperian rationalism as strict deductivism on the one hand and the highly sophisticated neomarxian theory of Habermas on the other - a difference which could not be eliminated by a relation of complementarity between "hard" quantitative and "soft" clinical methods - as in the objectivism/ subjectivism controversy. Rather, the opponents parted just as funda­ mentally intransigent as they were at the beginning of the dispute over terminology and arguments. And no one would have been able to say at that time whether the social sciences or at least the philosophy of the lX Gerald Eberlein and Hal Berghel (Eds.): Theory and Decision, ix-xix. © 1988 by D. Reidel Publishing Company. x INTRODUCTION social sciences had gained in any way from the controversy. Adherents of "hard" and "soft" social sciences confronted each other as uncom­ promisingly as those of a classical social philosophy and a "trans­ classical" philosophy of the social sciences.3 The question of whether it made any concrete difference that the social sciences pursued their research as critical rationalists or critical theorists was not satisfactorily answered. Social scientists and philosophers, at that time, lacked an approach which integrated the legacies of logical empiricism,4 critical rationalism,s hermeneutics and phenomenology - the continental philosophies - with the legacies of North American pragmatism 6 and pragmaticism, and with the analytic philosophy of science, arising from the impact of European immigrants on American philosophy between the W orId Wars. This enumeration of philosophical approaches reflects a range of different methods in the social sciences, and precisely this indicates the fact that contemporary philosophies are not to be interpreted as dogmatic systems, but rather as alternative or complementary meth­ odologies. In this unsatisfactory situation Werner Leinfellner, who had chosen the USA as his academic home, together with Werner Kroeber-Riel and Gerald Eberlein, his European colleagues and friends, decided to propose a fresh conception for the social sciences and social phi­ losophy. Their approach was methodological and topical in character - as opposed to the objectivism/subjectivism controversy and even more so with respect to the positivism controversy. Thus, in October 1970, THEORY AND DECISION: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY AND METHODOLOGY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES had as the theme of its first issue a 'Symposium on Decision Theory'.1 The title of the journal and the topic of this special issue both emphasized the intended integration of philosophy and the social sciences. Quite con­ trary to classical philosophies of the past, the new journal conceived of philosophy, not as a closed system based on metaphysical premisses, but as a philosophy of the social sciences in three basic respects: First, on a fundamental
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anti-Metaphysics: 1. Agnosticism (Qv). 2. Logical Positivism (See Scientific Empiricism (1))
    Anti-metaphysics: 1. Agnosticism (q.v.). 2. Logical Positivism (see Scientific Empiricism (1)) holds that those metaphysical statements which are not confirmable by experiences (see Verification 4, 5) have no cognitive meaning and hence are pseudo-statements (see Meaning, Kinds of, 1, 5). — R.C. Basic Sentences, Protocol Sentences: Sentences formulating the result of observations or perceptions or other experiences, furnishing the basis for empirical verification or confirmation (see Verification). Some philosophers take sentences concerning observable properties of physical things as basic sentences, others take sentences concerning sense-data or perceptions. The sentences of the latter kind are regarded by some philosophers as completely verifiable, while others believe that all factual sentences can be confirmed only to some degree. See Scientific Empiricism. — R.C. Formal: l. In the traditional use: valid independently of the specific subject-matter; having a merely logical meaning (see Meaning, Kinds of, 3). 2. Narrower sense, in modern logic: independent of, without reference to meaning (compare Semiotic, 3). — R.C. Intersubjective: Used and understood by, or valid for different subjects. Especially, i. lan- guage, i. concepts, i. knowledge, i. confirmability (see Verification). The i. character of science is especially emphasized by Scientific Empiricism (g. v., 1 C). —R.C. Meaning, Kinds of: In semiotic (q. v.) several kinds of meaning, i.e. of the function of an expression in language and the content it conveys, are distinguished. 1. An expression (sen- tence) has cognitive (or theoretical, assertive) meaning, if it asserts something and hence is either true or false. In this case, it is called a cognitive sentence or (cognitive, genuine) statement; it has usually the form of a declarative sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aesthetic Turn
    MARK C. TAYLOR The aesthetic turn his paper considers alternative styles of philoso- because it suggests that there is nothing outside or phy, based on art or science, through an investi- beyond style. Art and style, in turn, are inseparable – Tgation of Rudolf Carnap and Martin Heidegger. there is no art without style and no style without art. Carnap’s criticism of Heidegger’s account of das Nichts The distinction, I am suggesting, is not hard-and-fast. is analysed in relation to Immanuel Kant’s theory of Just as there is a religious dimension to all culture, so the imagination. Heidegger’s account of the work of there is an artistic dimension to all creative thinking; art demonstrates philosophies that take science as and just as religion is often most significant where it is their model, over-emphasize cognition, and do not ad- least obvious, so style is often most influential where equately consider the importance of apprehension. it remains unnoticed, and often denied. The choice, then, is not between style and non-style but between a style that represses its artistic and aesthetic aspects, In 1946, Paul Tillich published a seminal essay and a style that explicitly expresses them. In order to entitled ‘The two types of philosophy of religion’ in explore the differences between these two alterna- which he maintained that every philosophy of reli- tives, I begin by examining the debate between two gion developed in the Christian tradition takes one philosophers whose work has played a crucial role of two forms. While Alfred North Whitehead once in framing the debate for almost a century: Rudolf suggested that everyone is born either a Platonist or Carnap and Martin Heidegger.
    [Show full text]
  • Passmore, J. (1967). Logical Positivism. in P. Edwards (Ed.). the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 5, 52- 57). New York: Macmillan
    Passmore, J. (1967). Logical Positivism. In P. Edwards (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 5, 52- 57). New York: Macmillan. LOGICAL POSITIVISM is the name given in 1931 by A. E. Blumberg and Herbert Feigl to a set of philosophical ideas put forward by the Vienna circle. Synonymous expressions include "consistent empiricism," "logical empiricism," "scientific empiricism," and "logical neo-positivism." The name logical positivism is often, but misleadingly, used more broadly to include the "analytical" or "ordinary language philosophies developed at Cambridge and Oxford. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The logical positivists thought of themselves as continuing a nineteenth-century Viennese empirical tradition, closely linked with British empiricism and culminating in the antimetaphysical, scientifically oriented teaching of Ernst Mach. In 1907 the mathematician Hans Hahn, the economist Otto Neurath, and the physicist Philipp Frank, all of whom were later to be prominent members of the Vienna circle, came together as an informal group to discuss the philosophy of science. They hoped to give an account of science which would do justice -as, they thought, Mach did not- to the central importance of mathematics, logic, and theoretical physics, without abandoning Mach's general doctrine that science is, fundamentally, the description of experience. As a solution to their problems, they looked to the "new positivism" of Poincare; in attempting to reconcile Mach and Poincare; they anticipated the main themes of logical positivism. In 1922, at the instigation of members of the "Vienna group," Moritz Schlick was invited to Vienna as professor, like Mach before him (1895-1901), in the philosophy of the inductive sciences. Schlick had been trained as a scientist under Max Planck and had won a name for himself as an interpreter of Einstein's theory of relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • 8897690 Lprob 1.Pdf
    CAMBRIDGE AND VIENNA FRANK P. RAMSEY AND THE VIENNA CIRCLE VIENNA CIRCLE INSTITUTE YEARBOOK [2004] 12 VIENNA CIRCLE INSTITUTE YEARBOOK [2004] 12 Institut ‘Wiener Kreis’ Society for the Advancement of the Scientific World Conception Series-Editor: Friedrich Stadler Director, Institut ‘Wiener Kreis’ and University of Vienna, Austria Advisory Editorial Board: Honorary Consulting Editors: Rudolf Haller, University of Graz, Austria, Coordinator Kurt E. Baier Nancy Cartwright, London School of Economics, UK Francesco Barone Robert S. Cohen, Boston University, USA C.G. Hempel † Wilhelm K. Essler, University of Frankfurt/M., Germany Stephan Kö rner † Kurt Rudolf Fischer, University of Vienna, Austria Henk Mulder † Michael Friedman, University of Indiana, Bloomington, USA Arne Naess Peter Galison, Harvard University, USA Paul Neurath † Adolf Grünbaum, University of Pittsburgh, USA Willard Van Orman Quine † Rainer Hegselmann, University of Bayreuth, Germany Marx W. Wartofsky † Michael Heidelberger, University of Tübingen, Germany Jaakko Hintikka, Boston University, USA Review Editor: Gerald Holton, Harvard University, USA Michael Stöltzner Don Howard, University of Notre Dame, USA Allan S. Janik, University of Innsbruck, Austria Editorial Work/Layout/Production: Richard Jeffrey, Princeton University, USA Hartwig Jobst Andreas Kamlah, University of Osnabrück, Germany Camilla R. Nielsen Eckehart Köhler, University of Vienna, Austria Erich Papp Anne J. Kox, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Saul A. Kripke, Princeton University, USA Editorial
    [Show full text]
  • Misconceived Relationships Between Logical Positivism and Quantitative Research Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D., D
    Misconceived relationships between logical positivism and quantitative research Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D., D. Phil. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 2001 American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA Published in Research Method Forum, 2003 Included in the book Philosophical foundations of quantitative research methodology (2006, Laham, MD: University Press of America) Correspondence: Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D., D. Phil. Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.creative-wisdom.com/pub/pub.html Logical positivism and Quantitative Research 2 Abstract Although quantitative research methodology is widely applied by social scientists, there is a common misconception that quantitative research is based upon logical positivism. This misconception leads to misguided disputes between qualitative and quantitative researchers. This article points out that the polarities between the two are unnecessary, and the richness and continuity of “research traditions” is therefore proposed as a replacement for the incommensurability in the Kuhnian “paradigm.” Further, this article examines the relationship between quantitative research and eight major notions of logical positivism: (a) verification, (b) pro-observation, (c) anti-cause, (d) downplaying explanation, (e) anti- theoretical entities, (f) anti-metaphysics, (g) logical analysis and (h) frequentist probability. It is argued that the underlying philosophy of modern quantitative research does not subscribe to logical positivism. Associating an outdated philosophy with quantitative research
    [Show full text]
  • Thought. More Detailed Treatment of Relevant Issues - with Which I Do Not Necessarily Agree - Is Given, Inter Alia, by Ross (1953), Sinaiko
    thought. More detailed treatment of relevant issues - with which I do not necessarily agree - is given, inter alia, by Ross (1953), Sinaiko (1965) and Stenzel (1964), with regard to Plato, Dancy (1975), Hartman (1977), and Leszl (1975) with regard to Aristotle, and Long (1971), Rist (1969) and Zeller (1962) with regard to Stoicism. Merlan (1975) offers relevant discussion ranging from Plato to neoplatonism. In the subsequent development the original models associated with the Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoic philosophies underwent more or less extensive modification and variation but the basic approaches to epistemology persisted. Using the categories as defined in the last sub-section the episte­ mology associated with Plato is clearly intellectualist in character, the primary cognitive objects being the Ideas as intelligible entities apprehended by the intellect. The type associated with Stoicism is clearly empiricist, the primary cognitive objects being the impres- sions as sensory data registered in the subject through the senses. Stoic empiricism may be further described as "sensationalist" (or "sensualist") since the sensory impressions, and these alone, appear to function as the immediate objects of knowledge. However it seems to me that this is best regarded as a further refinement within the broader empiricist category, sensationalism being regarded as a sub- type of empiricism. Similarly we can distinguish sub-types within the intellectualist type of epistemology. The type of epistemology associated with Aristotle - rational ab­ straction from sensory experience - is less straightforward. At first sight the origin of knowledge in sensory experience suggests an empi­ ricist epistemology of some sort. And, indeed, it may well be that at a certain stage of his thought Aristotle did entertain a kind of empiricism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of Logical Positivism ______
    The Philosophy of Logical Positivism ________________________________________________ Mauro Murzi Member of Società Filosofica Italiana [email protected] http://www.murzim.net 1 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction.................................................................................................5 2. The Main Philosophical Tenets of Logical Positivism...............................7 a. Verifiability Principle.............................................................................7 b. Elimination of Metaphysics...................................................................7 c. The Language of Science.......................................................................8 d. Observational and Theoretical Terms..................................................10 e. Synthetic and Analytic Statements.......................................................11 f. Probability and Inductive Logic...........................................................12 g. Ethics....................................................................................................14 3. History of Logical Positivism...................................................................15 a. Before Logical Positivism....................................................................15 b. Early Research in Europe.....................................................................17 c. The American Period............................................................................17 d. Influences on European Philosophy.....................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • LOGICAL EMPIRICISM BETWEEN PRAGMATISM and NEOPRAGMATISM Sami Pihlström Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies E-Mail: [email protected]
    1 LOGICAL EMPIRICISM BETWEEN PRAGMATISM AND NEOPRAGMATISM Sami Pihlström Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies E-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction Both logical empiricism and pragmatism have been regarded as “philosophical revolutions”, and both went through crucial development and transformation during the period this book focuses on, 1895-1935. This essay can by no means exhaustively analyze these developments. However, I will examine some ways in which more recent neopragmatism is rooted in the “revolution” of those years, as well as some neglected pragmatism-related trends in logical empiricism. The Americanization of originally European analytic philosophy, beginning with the rise of Nazism in Europe, has been described as a move “from the Vienna Circle to Harvard Square” (Holton 1993). There are, indeed, significant links between logical empiricism 1 and American pragmatism; these links can also be argued to have been influential, albeit often implicitly, in the emergence of what is today known as neopragmatism.2 In the United States, C.I. Lewis, Ernest Nagel, and W.V. Quine, among others, played an important role as mediators between these philosophical schools. 3 Another interesting mediating figure – some decades earlier – between pragmatism and early analytic philosophy was Frank Ramsey, who could have changed the history of twentieth century philosophy by truly developing a synthesis of these philosophies, had he lived longer.4 Charles Morris’s “pragmatic empiricism” was yet another milestone between Vienna and America; Morris argued for the complementarity and even convergence of pragmatism and logical empiricism throughout the 1930s (see Morris 1937, 1938, 1963; cf. Carnap 1963). 1 I will speak of “logical empiricism” instead of “logical positivism”, unless there is a reason to be more specific.
    [Show full text]
  • THE END of METAPHYSICS: LOGICAL POSITIVISM and POSTMODERNISM by Owen Blayne Chapman a Thesis Submitted to the Department of Phil
    THE END OF METAPHYSICS: LOGICAL POSITIVISM AND POSTMODERNISM by Owen Blayne Chapman A thesis submitted to the Department of Philosophy in conformity with the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts Queen's University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September, 1997 copyright O Owen Blayne Chapman, 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 191 om,, du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowulg the exclusive permettant B la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distriiute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent êeimprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation, Recent reevaluations of logical positivism have called into question the standard phenomenalist interpretation of that movement. These reevduations have focused on the anti-metaphysical agenda pursued by the positivists in a way which opens up their ideas to pragmatic interpretations of their views on truth about fundamental reality. In this thesis 1 explore how these new developments make room for a cornparison between positivism and the contemporary philosophical position known as postmodernism.
    [Show full text]
  • “Logical Positivism”— “Logical Empiricism”: What’S in a Name?
    “Logical Positivism”— “Logical Empiricism”: What’s in a Name? Thomas Uebel University of Manchester Do the terms “logical positivism” and “logical empiricism” mark a philo- sophically real and signiªcant distinction? There is, of course, no doubt that the ªrst term designates the group of philosophers known as the Vi- enna Circle, headed by Moritz Schlick and including Rudolf Carnap, Her- bert Feigl, Philipp Frank, Hans Hahn, Otto Neurath, Friedrich Wais- mann and others. What is debatable, however, is whether the name “logical positivism” correctly distinguishes their doctrines from related ones called “logical empiricism” that emerged from the Berlin Society for Scientiªc Philosophy around Hans Reichenbach which included Walter Dubislav, Kurt Grelling, Kurt Lewin and a young Carl Gustav Hempel.1 The person who called the co-referentiality of the two terms into ques- tion was Reichenbach himself. He did so in two publications of the second half of the 1930s—in an article in Journal of Philosophy (1936) and in his Experience and Prediction (1938)—in order to alert readers to important dif- ferences between his own philosophy and that of the Vienna Circle.2 Reichenbach’s distinction was taken up by his former student Wesley Salmon.3 Not only did Salmon restate it, but he also asserted, categorically and very much in Reichenbach’s spirit, that “our chief inheritance from logical positivism” is “logical empiricism” ([1985] 2005, p. 7). The story of this inheritance is the story of “twentieth-century scientiªc philoso- phy”: 1. In their “Introduction” to the Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism Richardson and Uebel solve the matter by decree, declaring both terms to be “synonymous” (2007, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Empiricism
    Logical Empiricism HISTORICAL CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES Edited by Paolo Parrini, University ofFlorence Wesley C. Salmon, University ofPittsburgh Merrilee H. Salmon, University of Pittsburgh UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PRESS This book is dedicated to the memory of Wesley C . Salmon 1925-2001 Published by the University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, P&, 15260 Copyright ® 2003, University of Pittsburgh Press All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Printed on add-free paper 10987654321 ISBN 0 - 8n9- 4194-5 Contents Preface Introduction r Paolo Parrini and Wesley Salmon I. Turning Points and Fundamental Controversies rt A Turning Point in Philosophy : Carnap-Cassirer-Heidegger 13 Michael Friedman Carnap's "Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language" : A Retrospective Consideration of the Relationship between Continental and Analytic Philosophy 30 Gottfried Gabriel Schlick and Husserl on the Essence of Knowledge 43 Roberta Lanfredini Carnap versus Gbdel on Syntax and Tolerance 57 S. Awodey and A. W Carus II. On the Origins and Development of the Vienna Circle 65 On the Austrian Roots of Logical Empiricism: The Case of the First Vienna Circle 67 Thomas Uebel On the International Encyclopedia, the Neurath-Carnap Disputes, and the Second World War 94 George Reisch Carl Gustav Hempel : Pragmatic Empiricist log Gereon Wolters III. The Riddle of Wittgenstein 123 The Methods of the Tractatus: Beyond Positivism and Metaphysics? 125 David G. Stern IV Philosophy of Physics 157 Two Roads from Kant : Cassirer, Reichenbach, and General Relativity ' 159 T A. Ryckman Vienna Indeterminism II : From Exner to Frank and von Mises 194 'Michael Stoltzner V. The Mind-Body Problem 231 The Mind-Body Problem in the Origin of Logical Empiricism : Herbert Feigl and Psychophysical Parallelism 233 Michael Heidelberger Logical Positivism and the Mind-Body Problem 263 Jaegwon Kim VI.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Philosophies Behind Public Administration's Research Tradition
    Three Philosophies Behind Public Administration’s Research Tradition Patricia M. Shields Southwest Texas State University Department of Political Science San Marcos, TX 78666 512-245-2143 [email protected] Presented at the Trinity Symposium on Public Management Research, San Antonio, TX July 23, 1995 1 Three Philosophies Behind Public Administration’s Research Tradition Patricia M. Shields Southwest Texas State University Public Administration has had a history of difficulty and confusion defining itself. Evidence of this confusion can be found in the theory/practice debate. Part of the confusion stems from the way the research/theory/practice problem is conceptualized. For example, some academics argue that the discipline of Public Administration1 needs more rigor and stature. Using the norms of science, they seek explanatory theories with empirical import.2 Another group of academics is concerned about the norms of science being inappropriately applied to Public Administration. 3They are critical of the logical positivist philosophic tradition introduced by Herbert Simon (1945) in Administrative Behavior. Finally, the practitioner asks a wholly different question: What is the use of theory? How can it help me do my job? The differences in these perspectives led me to ask; Just what were the philosophic traditions that underlie the debate and approaches to public administration as either a field of study or a world of practice? Could confusion over unstated philosophic assumptions be hampering productive dialogue? Could these seemingly conflicting positions live under one larger umbrella? This paper is a preliminary attempt to explore three modern philosophical traditions and link them to Public Administration theory and practice.
    [Show full text]