Du Bois-Reymond’s Ignorabimus could have been a game changer in the last decades of 19th century, but it wasn’t. The sound argument of the German physiologist concerning the limits of natural science, although it was indeed taken seriously and confronted by all means, was in fact so severely distorted by opponents that one could hardly recognize it in the straw men generated in the process. By scrutinizing three less known approaches dug up from 19th century Romanian literature, the present (...) paper focuses on the theoretical commitments that prevented the consciousness issue to be properly addressed. (shrink)

In diesem Streit - ausgelöst durch Emil Du Bois-Reymonds Vortrag 'Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens '(1872) - ging es nicht mehr um die Abgrenzung der Erklärungskompetenzen von Religion, Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft, sondern um die Frage, ob der so erfolgreichen Naturwissenschaft ebenfalls Erkenntnisgrenzen gesetzt seien: an den Problemen der Erkennbarkeit des Wesens der Materie und der Rückführbarkeit der subjektiven Qualitäten menschlichen Empfindens und Denkens auf materielle Zustände. Die Behauptung, es gebe Bereiche, die der Wissenschaft nicht nur mit den damaligen Mitteln, sondern (...) prinzipiell verschlossen blieben, schien ihren universalen Erklärungsanspruch zu unterminieren. Diese Debatte hat auch heute nichts an Brisanz verloren, auch wenn sie zumeist nicht mehr im direkten Rückgriff auf die damalige ausgetragen wird. (shrink)

ArgumentIn this paper I present an interpretation of du Bois-Reymond’s thesis on the impossibility of a scientific explanation of consciousness and of its present importance. I reconsider du Bois-Reymond’s speech “On the limits of natural science” in the context of nineteenth-century German philosophy and neurophysiology, pointing out connections and analogies with contemporary arguments on the “hard problem of consciousness.” Du Bois-Reymond’s position turns out to be grounded on an epistemological argument and characterized by a metaphysical skepticism, motivated by the unfruitful (...) speculative tendency of contemporary German philosophy and natural science. In the final sections, I show how contemporary research can benefit from a reconsideration of this position and its context of emergence, which is a good vantage point to trace open problems in consciousness studies back to their historical development. (shrink)

This paper offers a new interpretation of Nietzsche’s conception of scientific explanation that promises to resolve the apparent tension between his insistence on the veracity of such explanations, and his frequent attempts to impugn their cognitive reach. Nietzsche follows earlier nineteenth-century critiques of science in claiming that science yields only factual or “descriptive” knowledge, not understanding. The paper concludes that the conception of descriptive knowledge is robust and compatible with Nietzsche’s commitment to the truth and rigor of scientific theories. The (...) interpretation also sheds new light on Nietzsche’s oft-voiced claims that certain concepts “falsify” the world. (shrink)

The topic of this article is Hilbert’s axiom of solvability, that is, his conviction of the solvability of every mathematical problem by means of a finite number of operations. The question of solvability is commonly identified with the decision problem. Given this identification, there is not the slightest doubt that Hilbert’s conviction was falsified by Gödel’s proof and by the negative results for the decision problem. On the other hand, Gödel’s theorems do offer a solution, albeit a negative one, in (...) the form of an impossibility proof. In this sense, Hilbert’s optimism may still be justified. Here I argue that Gödel’s theorems opened the door to proof theory and to the remarkably successful development of generalized as well as relativized realizations of Hilbert’s program. Thus, the fall of absolute certainty came hand in hand with the rise of partially secure and reliable foundations of mathematical knowledge. Not all was lost and much was gained. (shrink)

The late 19th-century Ignorabimus controversy over the limits of scientific knowledge has often been characterized as proclaiming the end of intellectual progress, and by implication, as plunging Germany into a crisis of pessimism from which Liberalism never recovered. My research supports the opposite interpretation. The initiator of the Ignorabimus controversy, Emil du Bois-Reymond, was a physiologist who worked his whole life against the forces of obscurantism, whether they came from the Catholic and Conservative Right or the scientistic and (...) millenarian Left. Du Bois-Reymond’s doubt that scientists would ever elucidate consciousness must therefore be seen as an endorsement, and not a rejection, of his faith in reason. (shrink)

With his talk on the limits of natural knowledge in 1872 ("Ignorabimus! We will never know!"), Emil du Bois-Reymond stirred up a controversy (the Ignorabimus-Streit), which spread widely beyond German-speaking countries. It concerned the very possibility to set boundaries to knowledge, the development of the sciences, their attainable results, and concept formation. In this volume, the philosophical value of the Ignorabimus controversy is critically examined. The historical matter and its theoretical implications are assessed with regard to the (...) mutual relationships between philosophy and the sciences in the 19th century and beyond. (shrink)

Nous ne saurons jamais – selon le célèbre Ignorabimus de Du Bois-Raymond – ce qu’est la conscience ; mais cela ne nous dispense pas de l’impératif théorique de la décrire adéquatement dans ses réalisations, même si cette description nous agace par son caractère inextricable. 1. Introduction Dans ses phénomènes les plus habituels et quotidiens, la vie consciente est traversée d’interruptions, elle se diffracte en ses manifestations, connaît des lacunes et des ruptures. Comment comprendre et dé...

Against Thomas Mormann's argument that differential topology does not support Carnap's conventionalism in geometry we show their compatibility. However, Mormann's emphasis on the entanglement that characterizes topology and its associated metrics is not misplaced. It poses questions about limits of empirical inquiry. For Carnap, to pose a question is to give a statement with the task of deciding its truth. Mormann's point forces us to introduce more clarity to what it means to specify the task that decides between competing hypotheses (...) and in what way such a task may be both in practice and/or in principle impossible to carry out. (shrink)