DOCSLIB.ORG

Bsc Chemistry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bsc Chemistry ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Subject PSYCHOLOGY Paper No and Title Paper No 3: Qualitative Methods Module No and Title Module No 2: Logical Positivism Module Tag PSY_P3_M2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning Outcomes 2. Introduction 2.1 Historical Background 3. The Vienna Circle 3.1 Themes of Logical Positivism 4. The Main Philosophical Tenets of Logical Positivism 4.1 The Verifiability Principle 4.2 Sources of Knowledge 4.3 Reductionism and the Unity of Science 5. Limitations/Criticisms 5.1 Internal Weakness 5.2 External Criticisms 6. Logical positivism and Psychology 7. Summary PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. 3: Qualitative Methods MODULE No. 2: Logical Positivism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Learning Outcomes After studying this module, you shall be able to Understand how philosophical debates guide and govern research and knowledge production. Learn about the historical emergence of the logical positivist movement. Identify the influence of logical positivism in psychological research. Evaluate the major philosophical tenets of logical positivism. Analyze the weaknesses inherent in the principles of logical positivism. 2. Introduction One of the most influential schools of philosophy of science in the twentieth century was logical positivism. This school of philosophy developed in Austria and Germany in the 1920s and was also known as logical empiricism. The development of logical positivism was influenced by the rapid changes taking place in physical science and mathematics. Thus, this view upheld the notion that scientific knowledge was the most important kind of factual information that was available, and all metaphysical doctrines were to be rejected as meaningless. Since, science was believed to be the model for intellectual and social progress, logical positivists resorted to analyzing the structure of scientific knowledge and reasoning. The practice of logical positivism, believes in two major sources of knowledge, one being logical reasoning while the other being empirical experience. The proponents of logical positivism included Moritz Schlick, founder of the Vienna Circle, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, founder of the Berlin Circle, Alfred Jules Ayer, Herbert Feigl, Philipp Frank, Kurt Grelling, Hans Hahn, Carl Gustav Hempel, Victor Kraft, Otto Neurath, and Friedrich Waismann. Despite being influential, the movement was short lived. Many philosophers and scientists today believe that logical positivism has left an indelible mark on the philosophy of science. This influence of logical positivism is particularly noticeable in the attention philosophers give to the analysis of scientific thought and to the integration of results from technical research on formal logic and the theory of probability. To better understand these developments lets revisit the movement. 2.1 Historical Background The philosophy of logical positivism did not emerge in isolation. The questions and issues which had been raised by this circle of philosophers were no different from those raised previously at different times. This section focuses on the forces that influenced the development of logical positivism to a great extent. PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. 3: Qualitative Methods MODULE No. 2: Logical Positivism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.1.1 Classical Empiricism: Logical positivism borrowed itself from 18th century classical empiricism, which postulated that all knowledge can be gained only through the senses. This position was opposite of the rationalist position, which stated that knowledge can be gained through the use of reason. One of the key figures of classical empiricism was John Locke (1632-1704). Locke proposed that everything is learnt and nothing is innate. It is through experiencing and learning that the mind is furbished. The mind of a new born child is, according to Locke, a tabula rasa or an empty slate and it is by experiencing the world through his/her senses that he/she develops ideas which become the source of all knowledge. Hence, the empiricist philosophers therefore strongly upheld that only sensory data could be treated as evidence which is verifiable in nature, instead of the metaphysical propositions favored by the rationalists. Other empiricists like David Hume (1711–1776), Thomas Hobbes (1588– 1679) and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) also emphasized on observable consequences of actions. Additionally, few American pragmatists like C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859–1962), also served as inspirational influence for the logical positivists. 2.1.2 Positivism: Logical positivism combined developments in empiricism and pragmatism with the existing positivist tradition, whose primary propagator was the French philosopher Auguste Comte. Comte’s ideas influenced both sciences- Natural and Social. The positivist approach believed that, the society functions in similar manner as the physical world, since the basic principles and general laws are applicable in both. In physics, the French mathematician as well as a philosopher-Jules Henri Poincare(1854- 1912) applied the positivist ideas, so as to construct a mechanism for comprehending and measuring human sensations and perceptions in terms of basic physical concepts. Ernst Mach (1838–1916), an Austrian physicist took a similar view. He proposed that the laws of physics were synonymous to the laws of all other sciences (including natural sciences), and were just like a shorthand summary of the numerous relationships which exist between the experiences of different observers. Fig 1: Auguste Comte Fig 2: Ernst Mach 2.1.3 Russell’s Mathematical Logic: Bertrand Russell’s mathematical logic exerted a great influence on logical positivism. Much of Russell’s work was concerned with the desires for perfect clarity and absolute certainty resting on the belief that analysis can be pursued down to certain indivisible elements, which are in some way incorrigible, and hence justify the intellectual edifice constructed from them. For this purpose he distinguished knowledge by acquaintance, which is indubitable, from knowledge by description, which PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. 3: Qualitative Methods MODULE No. 2: Logical Positivism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ may be in error. Examples of knowledge by acquaintance are sense data and the contents of our own memory. Borrowing from Russell, logical positivists not only adopted the thesis that all knowledge must be based on sense experience but were driven by the same motive of certainty and perfect clarity. 2.1.4 Wittgenstein's Tractatus was a text proposed by Ludwig Wittgenstein. It was of great importance for the positivists. This school of thought believed that the basic building blocks of reality are objects (simple and unanalyzable piece of information) which combine together to exist in a context forming the state of affairs. It has further focused on linguistic reforms by using modern logic and has also drawn attention to deducing a theoretically principled distinction between intelligible and nonsensical discourse. Wittgenstein's influence is further evident in certain formulations of the verification principle. Wittgenstein also influenced interpretation of probability by the logical positivists’. 3. The Vienna Circle The Vienna Circle was a group of scientifically trained philosophers and philosophically interested scientists, lead by Moritz Schlick. These professionals often met on Thursday evenings, every week, for discussing the problems regarding the philosophical dimension of scientific disciplines. The meetings began during the academic term, in the year 1924 and continued till 1936. These thinkers were greatly influenced by recent developments in science particularly Einstein’s physics, mathematical logic and philosophy of language and sought to synthesize these new ideas to institute a new philosophy. These groups of philosophers were against “German idealism” in particular, Hegel and Heidegger, who derived much of their ideas from German Idealism. They found their philosophies too abstruse and unclear. The Vienna Circle placed a high premium on reason, clarity and precision of language. They wanted to dispel mysticism, romanticism and nationalism. They also rejected the need for interpretation. Fig 3: Rudolf Carnap Schlick, who was the leader of the distinguished group, had been appointed to Mach's old chair in Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences at the University of Vienna in 1922. Apart from him, the group also involved participation of Hans Hahn (the mathematician), the social scientist Otto PSYCHOLOGY PAPER No. 3: Qualitative Methods MODULE No. 2: Logical Positivism ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Neurath, and his wife, Olga Hahn-Neurath, who was a mathematician. In addition the philosopher Viktor Kraft was also a member of the group, along-with Theodor Radacovic and Gustav Bergmann (both of whom were mathematicians) and, lastly, Rudolf Carnap, a philosopher as well as a logician, who joined the circle only in 1926. After its formative phase, the Circle went public in 1928 and 1929. It is then that the Vienna Circle became popular amongst the population of intellects and began to play a prominent role in the academic as well as the public sphere.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the History of Philosophy, Logical Empiricism Is Often Referred to As Neo-Positivism
    In the history of philosophy, Logical Empiricism is often referred to as neo-positivism. Since the positivism debate of the 1960s at the very latest, positivism has been considered the very embodiment of an affirmative philosophy that, in contrast to critical theory, is completely devoid of a social criticism component and lacks even the capacity to develop a transcendental perspective with respect to the existing social and economic order. Ever since, generations of students have been intellectually socialized with this negative image of positivism, which was also transferred to the Vienna Circle and Logical Empiricism of the interwar years. In the context of the historical centers of continental European Logical Empiricism, the research project analyzed two organizations that were dedicated to the dissemination of this approach in philosophy of science: The Ernst Mach Association and the Berlin Society of Empirical Philosophy (renamed Berlin Society of Scientific Philosophy in 1931). The associations were founded independently of one another in 1927 and 1928; however, a comparative analysis of their origins demonstrates remarkable parallels. Many representatives of the ‘scientific world-conception’ (which was the title of the Vienna Circle’s manifesto) came from an ideologically informed late-Enlightenment milieu that was anything but apolitical. Associations such as the Monists, the Freethinkers and even representatives of non-religious humanitarian ethics played key roles in the establishment of both societies. Although the activities of both associations became increasingly ‘scientific’ in the following years, they were never apolitical. Red Vienna and Red Berlin were opposed by Black Vienna and Black Berlin, both of which forcefully attacked their respective counterparts, as analysis of contemporary media coverage shows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism BOSTON STUDIES in the PHILOSOPHY and HISTORY of SCIENCE
    The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE Editors ROBERT S. COHEN, Boston University JURGEN¨ RENN, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science KOSTAS GAVROGLU, University of Athens Managing Editor LINDY DIVARCI, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Editorial Board THEODORE ARABATZIS, University of Athens ALISA BOKULICH, Boston University HEATHER E. DOUGLAS, University of Pittsburgh JEAN GAYON, Universit´eParis1 THOMAS F. GLICK, Boston University HUBERT GOENNER, University of Goettingen JOHN HEILBRON, University of California, Berkeley DIANA KORMOS-BUCHWALD, California Institute of Technology CHRISTOPH LEHNER, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science PETER MCLAUGHLIN, Universit¨at Heidelberg AGUSTI´ NIETO-GALAN, Universitat Aut`onoma de Barcelona NUCCIO ORDINE, Universit´a della Calabria ANA SIMOES,˜ Universidade de Lisboa JOHN J. STACHEL, Boston University SYLVAN S. SCHWEBER, Harvard University BAICHUN ZHANG, Chinese Academy of Science VOLUME 273 For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/5710 Nikolay Milkov • Volker Peckhaus Editors The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism 123 Editors Nikolay Milkov Volker Peckhaus Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Paderborn University of Paderborn 33098 Paderborn 33098 Paderborn Germany Germany ISSN 0068-0346 ISBN 978-94-007-5484-3 ISBN 978-94-007-5485-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5485-0 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London Library of Congress
    [Show full text]
  • Grelling on Dependence
    Grelling on dependence Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ ∗ Abstract Kurt Grelling wrote a paper in 1939 presenting various concepts of de- pendence. The paper remained unpublished, but deserves to be read today. Many of the ideas of the paper have been subsequently reinvented but one concept, which we call G-dependence, is still genuinely new, and that is the main topic of this paper. We isolate some basic properties of G-dependence and pose the question of finding simple axioms for it. 1 Introduction In his 1939 [11] the mathematician and logician Kurt Grelling2 developed, in co- operation with Paul Oppenheim3, a completely abstract theory of dependence and independence with apparently no connection to algebra or probability theory, al- though a study of dependence was emerging in these fields too. His starting point seems to have been so-called Gestalt Theory [23], but his prime example was the earthly way in which commercial price depends on supply and demand. This paper will present an overview of Grelling’s theory. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki, Finland · Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands ∗ Research partially supported by grant 40734 of the Academy of Finland. 2 Kurt Grelling was born in Berlin in 1886. He studied in Gottingen¨ with David Hilbert as his supervisor, graduating in 1910 with a thesis on set theory. Already in 1908 he published a paper with L. Nelson on Russell’s paradox, in which they introduced what is today known as the Grelling- Nelson paradox. He was subsequently influential in philosophy in the so-called Berlin Circle.
    [Show full text]
  • July, and October
    ISSN 0739-4934 NEWSLETTER I {!STORY OF SCIENCE _iu_'i_i_u~-~-~-o~_9_N_u_M_B_E_R_3__________ S00ETY AAASREPORT HSSEXECUTIVE A Larger Role for History of Science COMMITTEE PRESIDENT in Undergraduate Education STEPHEN G. BRUSH, University of Maryland NORRISS S. HETHERINGTON VICE-PRESIDENT Office for the History of Science and Technology, SALLY GREGORY KOHLSTEDT, University of California, Berkeley University of Minnesota EXECU11VESECRETARY HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE have often been called to contribute to under­ MICHAEL M. SOKAL, Worcester graduate education. As HSS President Stephen G. Brush notes jNewsletter, Polytechnic Institute January 1990, pp. 1, 8-10), historically oriented science courses could be­ TREASURER come a valuable part of the core curriculum at many institutions, and fac­ MARY LOUISE GLEASON, New York City ulty at many colleges-especially science professors-have expressed strong EDITDR interest in using materials and perspectives from history of science. RONALD L. NUMBERS, University of We are now called again, this time by the American Association for the Wisconsin-Madison Advancement of Science. The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action, published by the AAAS in May 1990, argues that science is one of the liberal The Newsletter of the History of Science arts and that it should be taught as such, as integrated into the totality of Society is published in January, April, July, and October. Regular issues are sent to individual human experience. This argument and advice may seem obvious to histori­ members of the Society who reside in North ans of science, but it is a revolutionary departure from tradition for many America. Airmail copies are sent to those scientists, and one that could transform both undergraduate education and members overseas who pay $5 yearly to cover postal costs: The Newsletter is available to the role of our discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Hans Reichenbach
    Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach and the Great Intellectual Migration Part II: Hans Reichenbach Sander Verhaegh Tilburg University Ich habe das Gefühl, dass gerade Amerika mit seinem Sinn für das konkrete und technische mehr Verständnis haben müsste für meine naturwissenschaftliche Philosophie als Europa, wo noch immer die mystisch-metaphysischen Spekulationen als die wahre Philosophie angesehen werden. ⎯ Reichenbach to Sidney Hook, January 31, 1935 II.1. Introduction In the late-1930s, Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, arguably the two most prominent scientific philosophers of their time, emigrated to the United States, escaping the increasingly perilous situation on the continent. Once in the U.S., the two significantly changed the American philosophical landscape. In this two-part paper, I reconstruct Carnap’s and Reichenbach’s surprisingly numerous interactions with American scholars throughout the 1920s and 1930s in order to better explain the transformation of analytic philosophy in the years before and after the Second World War. In the first part of this paper, I reconstructed Carnap’s contacts with American philosophers throughout the 1920s and 1930s. In this second part, I focus on Reichenbach’s interactions with the American philosophical community before he moved to the United States. I argue that some of Reichenbach’s work from the mid-1930s⎯ in particular Experience and Prediction (1938)⎯ can be better understood if we take into account the context in which it was written. This paper is structured as follows. After an overview of Reichenbach’s ignorance about Anglophone philosophy in the first stages of his academic career (§II.2), I reconstruct his ‘American turn’ in the early 1930s, focusing especially on the reception of his philosophy by a group of New York philosophers (§II.3).
    [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]
  • This Volume on the Vienna Circle's Influence in the Nordic Countries
    Vol. 8, no. 1 (2013) Category: Review essay Written by Carlo Penco This volume on the Vienna Circle’s influence in the Nordic countries gives a very interesting presentation of an almost forgotten landmark. In the years preceding the Second World War, European philosophy was at the high point of its intellectual vitality. Everywhere philosophical societies promoted a dense network of connections among scholars, with international meetings and strong links among individuals and associations. In this context, the Vienna Circle emerges as one of the many, also if probably the most well-known, centres of diffusion of a new style of philosophy, closely linked to the new logic and with a strongly empiricist attitude. At the same time, empiricism, formal logic and psychology constituted (and still constitute) the common background of most of the Nordic philosophers, a background which permitted them to develop connections with Vienna’s cultural environment (well known also for the work of psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, but also Charlotte and Karl Bühler). This piece of history, although limited to the connection between Nordic philosophy and Vienna Circle, helps to clarify the history of European philosophy, and the sharp difference of Nordic philosophy in respect of the development of philosophy in Southern and Central Europe in the half a century following the Second World War. The editors say in the introduction: . one of the least known networks of the Vienna Circle is the “Nordic connection”. This connection had a continuing influence for many of the coming decades, beginning with the earliest phase of the Vienna Circle and continuing with a number of adaptations and innovations well into contemporary times.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontological, Epistemological, and Methodological Positions
    ONTOLOGICAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AND METHODOLOGICAL POSITIONS James Ladyman INTRODUCTION This chapter summarises various important ontological, epistemological and methodological issues in the philosophy of science. Ontology is the theory of what exists and is the foremost concern of metaphysics, which is the study of the most fundamental questions about being and the nature of reality. Ontological issues in the philosophy of science may be specific to a particular special science, such as questions about the ontological status of biological species, or they may be more general, such as whether or not there are objective natural kinds. In the history of science ontological issues have often been of supreme importance; for example, whether or not atoms exist was a question that occupied many scientists in the nineteenth century. In what follows, some fundamental questions of ontology are discussed, some of which, such as those concerning laws of nature, are also ad- dressed in analytic metaphysics. A number of these issues also relate to debates in the foundations of physics about the ontological implications of our best physical theories. Readers who wish to know more about the philosophy of space and time and the nature of matter and motion should consult the companion volume to this on the philosophy of physics. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge and as such is concerned with such matters as the analysis of knowledge and its relationship to belief and truth, the theory of justification, and how to respond to the challenge of local scepticism, say about the past, or global scepticism, which suggests that there is no knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Nikolay Milkov and Volker Peckhaus (Eds.): the Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 273
    556 B OOK R EVIEWS Nikolay Milkov and Volker Peckhaus (eds.): The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 273. Springer, Dordrecht, 2013, x+332 pages During the last few decades, historians and philosophers of science radically changed our perspective on logical empiricism in general, and on the Vienna Circle in particular. Though there are still some members of the Circle who did not get much attention (Victor Kraft, Richard von Mises, Felix Kaufmann, Josef Schächter etc.), we are in a quite good position to judge many of their efforts. On the other hand, our historical understanding of logical empiricism in general leaves some- thing to be desired due to the circumstances that the so-called “Berlin Group” is underestimated in the literature. The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism, edited by Nikolay Milkov and Volker Peckhaus, is meant to bring attention to the German wing of logical empiricism, thus doing justice to that forgotten projects and figures who had (in)directly an important influence on the philosophy of science in the United States after World War II. Among the most important members, one finds Hans Reichenbach, Kurt Grelling, Walter Dubislav, Paul Oppenheim, Olaf Helmer, Kurt Lewin, and Carl Gustav Hempel. The collection is devoted to their ideas and con- text in the European philosophy of science scene. Part 1 is an introductory chapter composed of two papers: a longer article by Nikolay Milkov about the ‘affinities and divergences’ between the Vienna Circle and the Berlin Group. Though Milkov provides many important details and no- tions, his explanations are lacking sometimes, but I will come back to that later.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge, Truth, and Mathematics
    Knowledge, Truth, and Mathematics Philosophy 405 Russell Marcus Hamilton College, Spring 2014 Class #15: Conventionalism Marcus, Knowledge, Truth, and Mathematics, Slide 1 A Little (Summery?) Summary Marcus, Knowledge, Truth, and Mathematics, Slide 2 A Fourth School Conventionalism P Held by logical empiricists (logical positivists). P Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus P Vienna Circle < Rudolph Carnap < Otto Neurath < Moritz Schlick < Herbert Feigl P Berlin Circle < Hans Reichenbach P A.J. Ayer, from England Marcus, Knowledge, Truth, and Mathematics, Slide 3 Logical Empiricism P British empiricism (more Hume than Locke) plus logic P Seeking a systematic foundation for our scientific beliefs that relied on sense experience. P Hume and Locke imagined that all knowledge could be traced to sense experience. P The logical empiricists tried actually to trace construction of science from sense data. P Carnap’s 1928 The Logical Structure of the World or Aufbau < Student of Frege’s in Jena < Attempts to develop scientific theory out of sense-data, using the tools of Fregean logic. P Wittgenstein and the logical empiricists were responding in large part to Hegelian idealism and speculative metaphysics generally. P Like Hume, they were intent on ridding philosophy of what they deemed to be pseudo-problems, pseudo-questions, meaningless language, and controversial epistemology. Marcus, Knowledge, Truth, and Mathematics, Slide 4 The Verification Theory of Meaning P Hume: for a term to be meaningful, it has to stand for an idea in one’s mind that can be traced back (in some sense) to an initial sense impression. P Verification theory < For a sentence to be meaningful, it must be verifiable on the basis of observation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Berlin School of Logical Empiricism and Its Legacy
    Nicholas Rescher July 6, 2006 THE BERLIN SCHOOL OF LOGICAL EMPIRICISM AND ITS LEGACY 1. BACKGROUND What has become generally known as the Berlin School of Logical Empiricism constitutes a philosophical movement that was based in Berlin’s Gesellschaft fuer empirische Philosophie and erected on foundations laid by Albert Einstein. His revolutionary work in physics had a profound impact on philosophers interested in scientific issues, prominent among them Paul Oppenheim and Hans Reichenbach, the founding fathers of the school, who joined in viewing him as their hero among philosopher-scientists. Overall the membership of this school falls into three groups, as per Display 1.1 The founding generation was linked by the circumstance that both Grelling and Reichenbach were collaborators of Oppenheim; the middle generation by the fact that both Hempel and Helmer were students of Reichenbach’s in Berlin; and the younger generation by the fact that all of its members were students and (at least in their early years) disciples either of Reichenbach or of Hempel in the USA. Three stages are thus at issue: an initial phase in Berlin, a transatlantic migration, and a continuation in the U.S.A.—principally in Pittsburgh. 1 Various other people were involved in the Berlin School in a more peripheral way. A detailed account of its early days in Berlin (roughly 1927 to 1933) is given in Dieter Hoffman’s contribution to Dannenberg et. al. 1994, entitled “Zur Geschichte der Berliner Gesellschaft für empirisch/wissenschaftliche Philosophie.” 2 ___________________________________________________ Display 1 THE BERLIN SCHOOL I. THE FOUNDING GENERATION • Paul Oppenheim (1885-1977) • Kurt Grelling (1886-1942) • Hans Reichenbach (1891-1953) • Walter Dubislav (1895-1937) II.
    [Show full text]
  • Carnap, Reichenbach and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part II: Hans Reichenbach.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8(11): 24–47
    Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach and the Volume 8, Number 11 Great Intellectual Migration. Editor in Chief Part I: Rudolf Carnap Audrey Yap, University of Victoria Sander Verhaegh Editorial Board Annalisa Coliva, UC Irvine In the years before the Second World War, Rudolf Carnap and Henry Jackman, York University Hans Reichenbach emigrated to the United States, escaping the Frederique Janssen-Lauret, University of Manchester quickly deteriorating political situation on the continent. Once Kevin C. Klement, University of Massachusetts in the U. S., the two significantly changed the American philo- Consuelo Preti, The College of New Jersey sophical climate. This two-part paper reconstructs Carnap’s and Marcus Rossberg, University of Connecticut Reichenbach’s surprisingly numerous interactions with Ameri- Anthony Skelton, Western University can academics in the decades before their move in order to explain Mark Textor, King’s College London the impact of their arrival in the late 1930s. Building on archival Richard Zach, University of Calgary material of several key players and institutions, I take some first steps toward answering the question why logical empiricism be- Editors for Special Issues came so successful in the United States after the War. This first Sandra Lapointe, McMaster University part reconstructs Carnap’s development between 1923, when he Alexander Klein, McMaster University first visited New York, and 1936, when he was offered a position Review Editors at the University of Chicago. I describe Carnap’s first substantive Sean Morris, Metropolitan State University of Denver contacts with American philosophers as well as the events lead- Sanford Shieh, Wesleyan University ing up to his decision to emigrate.
    [Show full text]