Scientific Empiricism; Unity of Science Movement

Scientific Empiricism; Unity of Science Movement

A philosophical movement originated by the movement of Logical Positivism but including many other groups and persons (see II below).

I. Vienna Circle; Logical Positivsm, Logical Empiricism.

The Vienna Circle, founded by M. Schlick (q.v.) in 1924, ending with his death in 1936. Among its membersG. Bergmann, R. Carnap (q.v.), H. Feigl, Ph. Frank (q.v.), K. G&oUML;del (q.v.), H. Hahn (d. 1934), O. Neurath, F Waismann.

Seen historically, the movement shows influences from three sides

the older empiricism and positivism, especially Hume, Mill, Mach;

methodology of empirical science, as developed by scientists since about the middle of the 19th century, e.g., Helmholtz, Mach, Poincare. Duhem, Boltzmann, Einstein;

symbolic logic and logical analysis of language as developed especially by Frege, Whitehead and Russell, Wittgenstein.

Russell (q.v.) was the first to combine these trends and therefore had an especially strong influence.

The views developed in the V. C. have been called Logical Positivism (A. E. Blumberg and H. Feigl, J. Phil. 28, 1931); many members now prefer the term “Logical Empiricism”. Among the characteristic featuresemphasis on scientific attitude and on co-operation, hence emphasis on intersubjective (q.v.) language and unity of science. Empiricismevery knowledge that is factual (see Meaning, Kinds of, 1), is connected with experiences in such a way that verification or direct or indirect confirmation is possible (see Verification).

The emphasis on logical analysis of language (see Semiotic) distinguishes this movement from earlier empiricism and positivism. The task of philosophy is amlysis of knowledge, especially of science; chief methodanalysis of the language of science (see Semiotic; Meaning, Kinds of).

Publications concerning the historical development of this movement and its chief viewsWissenschaftliche WeltauffassungDer Wiener Kreis, Wien 1929 (with bibliography). O. Neurath, Le Developpement du Cercle de Vienne, et l’Avenir de l’Empirisme Logique, 1935. C. W. Morris, Logical Positivism, Pragmatism, and Scientific Empiricism, Paris 1937. E. Nagel, “Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe”, I, II, tic Empiricism in Germany, and the Present State of its Problems. Ibid. E. Nagel, “The Fight for ClarityLogical Empiricism”, Amer. Scholar, 1938. Many papers by members of the group have been published in “Erkenntnis” since 1930, now continued as “Journal of Unified Science”.

Compare M. Black, “Relations between Logical Positivism and the Cambridge School of Analysis”, J. Un. Sc. 8, 1940.

II. Scientific Empiricism. A wider movement, comprising besides Logical Empiricism other groups and individuals with related views in various countries. Also called Unity of Science Movement.

Among its members W. Dubislav (1937), K. Grelling, O. Helmer, C. G. Hempel, A. Herzberg, K.. Korsch, H. Reichenbach (q.v.), M. Strauss.

Many members of the following groups may be regarded as adherents of Scientific Empiricismthe Berlin Society for Scientific Philosophy, the W arsaw School, the Cambridge School for Analytic Philosophy (q.v.), further, in U. S. A., some of the representatives of contemporary Pragmatism (q.v.), especially C. W. Morris, of Neo-Realism (q.v.), and of Operationalism (q.v.).

Among the individual adherents not belonging to the groups mentionedE. Kaila (Finland), J. Jrgensen (Denmark), A. Ness (Norway); A. J. Ayer, J. H. Woodger (England); M. Boll (France); K. Popper (now New Zealand); E. Brunswik, H. Gomperz, Felix Kaufmann, R. V. Mises, L. Rougier, E. Zilsel (now in U. S. A.); E. Nagel, W. V. Quine, and many others (in U.S.A.).

The general attitude and the views of Scientific Empiricism are in esential agreement with those of Logical Empiricism (see above, 1). Here, the unity of science is especially emphasized, in various respects

There is a logical unity of the language of science; the concepts of different branches of science are not of fundamentally different kinds but belong to one coherent system. The unity of science in this sense is closely connected with the thesis of Physicahsm (q.v.).

There is a practical task in the present stage of development, to come to a better mutual adaptation of terminologies in different branches of science.

There is today no unity of the laws of science. It is an aim of the future development of science to come, if possible, to a simple set of connected, fundamental laws from which the special laws in the different branches of science, including the social sciences, can be deduced.

Here also, the analysis of language is regarded as one of the chief methods of the science of science. While logical positivism stressed chiefly the logical side of this analysis, it is here carried out from various directions, including an analysis of the biological and sociological sides of the activities of language and knowledge, as they have been emphasized earlier by Pragmatism (q.v.), especially C. S. Peirce and G. H. Mead. Thus the development leads now to a comprehensive general theory of signs or semiotic (q.v.) as a basis for philosophy

The following publications and meetings may be regarded as organs of this movement.

The periodical “Erkenntnis”, since 1930, now continued as “Journal of Unified Science”

The “Encyclopedia of Unified Science”, its first part (“Foundations of the Unity of Science”, 2 vols.) consisting of twenty monographs (eight appeared by 1940). Here, the foundations of various fields of science are discussed, especially from the point of view of the unity of science and scientific procedure, and the relations between the fields. Thus, the work intends to serve as an introduction to the science of science (q.v.).

A series of International Congresses for the Unity of Science was started by a preliminary conference in Prague 1934 (see report, Erkenntnis 5, 1935). The congresses took place at Pans in 1935 (“Actes”, Pans 1936; Erkenntnis 5, 1936); at Copenhagen in 1936 (Erkenntnis 6, 1937); at Paris in 1937; at Cambridge, England, in 1938 (Erkenntnis 7, 1938); at Cambridge, Mass., in 1939 (J. Unif. Sc. 9, 1941); at Chicago in 1941.

Concerning the development and the aims of this movement, see O. Neurath and C. W. Morris (for both, see above, I D), further H. Reichenbach, Ziele and Wege der heutigen Naturphilosophie, 1931; S. S. Stevens, “Psychology and the Science of Science”, Psych. Bull. 36, 1939 (with bibliography). Bibliographies in “Erkenntnis”1, 1931, p. 315, p. 335 (Polish authors); 2, 1931, p. 151, p. 189; 5, 1935, p. 185, p. 195 (American authors), p. 199 (Polish authors), p. 409, larger bibliographyin Encycl. Unif. Science, vol. II, No. 10 (to ippetr in 1942). — R.C.

Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy