The continuing philosophical interest in the famous 'Protocol Sentence Debate' in the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists is, to a large measure, due to the focus on the epistemological issues in the dispute, and the neglect of differences among the leading players in their philosophical views of logic and language. In Protocols, Truth and Convention, the current understanding of the debate is advanced by developing the contemporaneous views of logic and language held by the principal disputants. Rudolf Carnap and Moritz (...) Schlick. It is argued - largely on the basis of unpublished manuscripts and correspondence - that, despite apparent differences in their respective conceptions of language, there are nonetheless striking similarities, particularly with respect to the conventionality of language. Nonetheless, one key issue - concerning the syntacticism inherent in Carnap's early Thirties' philosophy - separates the two viewpoints in the clash over protocols. Finally, it is argued that Carnap's syntacticism is untenable, a conclusion that Carnap himself finally reached in the closing exchanges of the protocol sentence controversy. (shrink)

Uebel has recently claimed that, contrary to popular opinion, none of the philosophers of the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists were proponents of epistemological foundationalism. According to the considerations of the current discussion, however, Uebel's conclusion is erroneous, especially with respect to the work of Moritz Schlick. The chief reason Uebel offers to support his conclusion is that current attempts to portray Schlick's epistemology as foundationalist fail to overcome its ‘ultimate incoherence’. In contrast, it is argued that current interpretations, based (...) on the unpublished as well as the published record, provide understandings of Schlick's foundationalist epistemology as not only coherent, but plausible. In closing, Uebel's own treatment of Schlick's work, which purports to show that the most feasible candidates for foundational statements are ‘meaning-theoretic’ clarifications of the content of expressions, itself fails to accurately represent Schlick's own characterizations, and pictures Schlick's epistemology as a confused mix of epistemic and semantic insights. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to undermine Paul Feyerabend's claim, which is crucial to the success of his analysis of Positivism, that the Pragmatic Theory of Observation was first developed by Rudolf Carnap in his early discussions of protocol sentences. Rather, it will be argued that Carnap's conception of protocols was founded on considerations drawn from his conception of language so that Carnap's reasons for endorsing certain aspects of the Pragmatic Theory are nothing like Feyerabend's. Moreover, Carnap never approved (...) the final conclusion of the Pragmatic Theory, that observational reports are distinguished by their causes. These historical conclusions provide the basis for arguing that, despite Feyerabend's critique, Carnap's later views (in "The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts") clearly countenance theoretical influences on observational statements. (shrink)

One important achievement Rudolf Carnap claimed for his book, The Logical Syntax of Language, was that it effected a synthesis of two seemingly antithetical philosophies of mathematics, logicism and formalism. Reconciling these widely divergent conceptions had been a goal of Carnap’s for several years. But in the years in which Carnap’s synthesis evolved, important intellectual developments influenced the direction of his efforts and, ultimately, the final outcome. These developments were, first of all, the epoch-making theorems proved by Kurt Gödel, which (...) required the abandonment of several theses central to the aims of logicism and formalism. Of far greater significance, in the present context, are the changes in Carnap’s own philosophical outlook, brought about not only by Gödel’s theorems but concurrent discussions within the Vienna Circle as well as his own researches. Consequently, the exact sense in which Carnap attempted the synthesis of logicism and formalism in the Logical Syntax requires careful examination. In what follows below, the evolution of Carnap’s synthesis will be traced, from the first reconciliation he proposed , through the synthesis that appeared with the publication of The Logical Syntax of Language. The aim is to determine which modifications of Carnap’s synthesis were required by Gödel’s theorems, and which were motivated by changes in his own thinking. Although the characteristic theses of both logicism and formalism required profound modifications because of Gödel’s theorems, the philosophical impulses that originally fueled their programs retained much of their former virulence. But the changes in Carnap’s thought that ocurred in the years he was developing his synthesis especially affected his appreciation of the philosophical motivations underwriting the logicist approach, so that much of the philosophical insight that inspired it is lost, and Carnap’s combination of logicism and formalism is a putative synthesis at best. (shrink)

Marburg Neo-Kantianism has attracted substantial interest among contemporary philosophers drawn by its founding idea that the success of advanced theoretical science is a given fact and it is the task of philosophical inquiry to ground the objectivity of scientific achievement in its a priori sources (Cohen and Natorp 1906, p. i). The Marburg thinkers realized that recent advances and developments in the mathematical sciences had changed the character of Kant’s transcendental project, demanding new methods and approaches to establish the objectivity (...) of the latest insights into physical reality. Hermann Cohen, one of the founders of the Marburg School, attempted to base the objectivity of science on the concepts of .. (shrink)

Rudolf Carnap's 'Principle of Tolerance' was undoubtedly one of the most infl uential precepts in 20th Century philosophy. Introduced in The Logical Syntax of Language, Carnap's Principle suffered from ambiguities which aroused important philosophical questions from Moritz Schlick and Alberto Coffa. Specifi cally, their questions arise from the application of the Principle to the matter of including extra-logical transformation rules in the defi nition of a language, which Carnap regarded as an important difference between his own conventionalist philosophy of logic (...) and the 'absolutist' conception of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Yet both Schlick and Coffa suggested that applying the Tolerance precept to this matter exceeds the limits of its legitimate deployment. Upon considering their objections, as well as the criticism of Wittgenstein which evoked them, it is argued that the philosophical signifi cance of the Principle of Tolerance requires its strict limitation to matters pertaining to the determination of meaning. (shrink)

The most influential critique of the Logical Positivists’ analysis of scientific observation was posed by Paul Feyerabend in his classic essay, “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”. Feyerabend countered the later Positivist conception with his so-called ‘Pragmatic Theory of Observation’ which was founded on two ideas. The first is that observation reports are ‘theory-laden’, in the sense that they are always interpreted in the light of the best current theory and are subject to reinterpretation when one theory succeeds another. Feyerabend traced the (...) development of this idea in the early writings of the Positivists, especially Rudolf Carnap, in the classic discussion of protocol sentences. In that context, Feyerabend finds that the theory-ladenness of observation leads inexorably to the second idea of the Pragmatic Theory, that what counts as an observation report does not depend on either its empirical content or its logical form, but on its causal or pragmatic features. (shrink)

Coffa’s book attempts to unify the most important intellectual developments in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries by grouping them together as “The Semantic Tradition”, identifying their focus on issues in the philosophy of language and logic, and extolling their implications for epistemological issues. Coffa’s interpretations of the intellectual episodes he recounts are strikingly original and, though many will dissent, none will deny the care with which he argues or the scholarly erudition on which he rests his case.

Peter Abelard (1079–1142 ce) was the most wide‐ranging philosopher of the twelfth century. He quickly established himself as a leading teacher of logic in and near Paris shortly after 1100. After his affair with Heloise, and his subsequent castration, Abelard became a monk, but he returned to teaching in the Paris schools until 1140, when his work was condemned by a Church Council at Sens. His logical writings were based around discussion of the “Old Logic”: Porphyry's Isagoge, aristotle'S Categories and (...) On Interpretation and boethius'S textbook on topical inference. They comprise a freestanding Dialectica (“Logic”; probably c.1116), a set of commentaries (known as the Logica [Ingredientibus], c. 1119) and a later (c. 1125) commentary on the Isagoge (Logica Nostrorum Petititoni Sociorum or Glossulae). In a work Abelard called his Theologia, issued in three main versions (between 1120 and c.1134), he attempted a logical analysis of trinitarian relations and explored the philosophical problems surrounding God's claims to omnipotence and omniscience. The Collationes (“Debates,” also known as “Dialogue between a Christian, a Philosopher and a Jew”; probably c.1130) present a rational investigation into the nature of the highest good, in which the Christian and the Philosopher (who seems to be modeled on a philosopher of pagan antiquity) are remarkably in agreement. The unfinished Scito teipsum (“Know thyself,” also known as the “Ethics”; c.1138) analyses moral action. (shrink)

The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” in last Summer’s Atlantic Monthly, raised a number of provocative, and indeed worrisome, questions about computer usage and cognitive development. For instance, persons with considerable experience of reading for the sake of pleasure report that, after a couple of years using computers a great deal, they have experienced a loss of interest in pleasure-reading, even feeling impatient when written sources do not supply the information they seek quickly and conveniently. One suggestion is that (...) these effects are somehow related to the mathematical basis of computing provided in the work of Alan Turing. Since, however, Turing's work is based on earlier work by Kurt Gödel, the question may be referred to Gödel's results and it is argued that the mathematical architecture underlying computer operation and applications in no way limits the creativity or even the cognitive activity of its users. (shrink)