Tom Ryckman

Four distinguished authors have been brought together to produce this elegant study of a much-neglected figure. The book is divided into three sections: Neurath's biographical background and the economic and social context of his ideas; his theory of science; and the development of his role in debates on Marxist concepts of history and his own conception of science. Coinciding with the emerging serious interest in logical positivism, this timely publication will redress a current imbalance in the history and philosophy of science.

Eugene Wigner's several general discussions of symmetry and invariance principles are among the canonical texts of contemporary philosophy of physics. Wigner spoke from a position of authority, having pioneered for recognition of the importance of symmetry principles from nuclear to molecular physics. But perhaps recent commentators have not sufficiently stressed that Wigner always took care to situate the notion of invariance principles with respect to two others, initial conditions and laws of nature. Wigner's first such general consideration of invariance principles, an address presented at Einstein's 70th birthday celebration, held in Princeton on 19 March 1949, began by laying out just this distinction, and in a way that seems to suggest that the three notions arise through abstraction in an analysis of the general problem of cognition in the natural sciences: The world is very complicated and it is clearly impossible for the human mind to understand it completely. Man has therefore devised an artifice which permits the complicated nature of the world to be blamed on something which is called accidental and thus permits him to abstract a domain in which simple laws can be found. The complications are called initial conditions; the domain of regularities, laws of nature. the underlying abstraction is probably one of the most fruitful the human mind has made. It has made the natural sciences possible.

In early major works, Cassirer and Schlick differently recast traditional doctrines of the concept and of the relation of concept to intuitive content along the lines of recent epistemological discussions within the exact sciences. In this, they attempted to refashion epistemology by incorporating as its basic principle the notion of functional coordination, the theoretical sciences' own methodological tool for dispensing with the imprecise and unreliable guide of intuitive evidence. Examining their respective reconstructions of the theory of knowledge provides an axis of comparison along which to locate Cassirer's Neo-Kantianism and Schlick's pre-positivist empiricism, and an immediate background of contrast to the subsequent rise of logical empiricism. For in the absence of intuition all our knowledge is without objects and therefore remains entirely empty. (Kant A62/B87) And how awkward is the human mind in diving the nature of things when forsaken by the analogy of what we see and touch directly? (Boltzmann 1895).

A number of authors have recently argued that the mathematical insights of "chaos theory" offer a promising formal model or significant analogy for understanding at least some historical events. We examine a representative claim of each kind regarding the application of chaos theory to problems of historical explanation. We identify two lines of argument. One we term the Causal Thesis, which states that chaos theory may be used to plausibly model, and so explain, historical events. The other we term the Convergence Thesis, which holds that, once the analogy between history and chaos theory is properly appreciated, any temptation to divide history from the rest of science should be greatly lessened. We argue that the proffered analogy between chaos theory and history falls apart upon closer analysis. The promised benefits of chaos theory vis-à-vis history are either fantastic or, at best, an extremely loose heuristic which, while retaining nothing of the considerable intrinsic interest of nonlinear dynamics, easily seduces the unwary into taking at face value terms and concepts that have a specifically precise meaning only within the confines of mathematical theory

Recently discovered correspondence from Oskar Becker to Hermann Weyl sheds new light on Weyl's engagement with Husserlian transcendental phenomenology in 1918-1927. Here the last two of these letters, dated July and August, 1926, dealing with issues in the philosophy of mathematics are presented, together with background and a detailed commentary. The letters provide an instructive context for re-assessing the connection between intuitionism and phenomenology in Weyl's foundational thought, and for understanding Weyl's term ‘symbolic construction’ as marking his own considered position in the foundational controversy of the 1920s. In addition, they reveal Weyl's hitherto unknown objections to Becker's detailed attempt (Mathematische Existenz, 1927) to ground the transfinite phenomenologically.

Einstein and Hilbert both struggled to reconcile general covariance and causality in their early work on general relativity. In Einstein’s case, this first led to his infamous “hole argument”, a stumbling block that persuaded him early on that generally covariant field equations for gravitation could never be found. After his breakthrough to general covariance in the fall of 1915, the resolution came in form of the “point-coincidence argument.” Hilbert from the beginning took a different view of the “causality problem,” though he shifted his position somewhat in the light of Einstein’s breakthrough in November 1915. Nevertheless, his aim was to establish initial conditions that would lead to a well-defined Cauchy problem in general relativity. Hilbert consistently advocated the use of coordinate conditions in order to obtain solutions of the field equations that would maintain the causal ordering of events. Einstein’s “causality problem” thus differs from that of Hilbert, and the latter was never a victim of Einstein’s “hole argument.”

The ArgumentRecent archival research has brought about a new understanding of the import of Einstein's puzzling remarks (1916) attributing a physical meaning to general covariance. Debates over the scope and meaning of general covariance still persist, even within physics. But already in 1921 Cassirer identified the significance of general covariance as a novel stage in the development of the criterion of objectivity within physics; an account of this development, and its implications, is the primary task undertaken in his monograph of “epistemological considerations” on the theory of relativity. Cassirer's assessment is correct: general covariance, understood as an injunction against dynamical theories with background elements, is a “limiting heuristic principle” guiding Einstein's fundamental conception of a “complete field theory”; as such, it underlies a “separation principle” built into the conceptual framework of the EPR criticism of quantum mechanics. In conclusion, a further parallel is noted: mutual recognition that the principle of general covariance is but a form of “anthropomorphism.”

This work examines the foundations of linguistic theory, with particular reference to the status and justification of grammars and theories of language structure. A metatheoretical critique of generative grammar is followed by epistemological motivation for, and presentation of, an alternative conception of language structure due to Harris, together with an approach to its justification. It is proposed that grammars have an informational validity as structures comprised of maximally unredundant equivalence classes whose members all demonstrably 'say the same' over a specified domain. Chapter 1 introduces the issues involved and summarizes the argument. In Chapter 2, the metatheoretical situation in American structural linguistics prior to the advent of generative grammar is reviewed. Among the findings are that familiar attributions to the central figures of this period of a goal of providing "mechanical discovery procedures" for grammars or of attempting to specify linguistic form without regard to meaning are groundless. Chapter 3 situates the first major work of generative grammar in respect to Quine's contemporary proposals for linguistic theory and finds wanting arguments advanced that linguistic form can be identified independently of considerations of meaning. Chapter 4 charts the evolution of generative grammar from a "formal systems" view of grammars and languages to recent proposals concerning "core grammar" and "markedness". It is argued that in pursuit of "explanatory adequacy" generative grammar has increasingly been distanced from the control of empirical evaluation, and that claims seeking a biological locus for abstract grammatical properties are unsubstantiated and problematic in themselves. Chapter 5 provides an epistemological critique of 'information' as employed by recent writers. Grammars--as unredundant characterizations of combinations of linguistic elements that can occur--are characterizations of information. Chapter 6 refers to a prior study presenting a 'grammar' of a sublanguage of cellular immunology. It is shown both how and that a theory of language structure can be empirically validated by enabling the construction of formulas of information that compactly summarize and trace the findings and discussions in research reports of a science.

This collaborative work provides an intellectual portrait of a man known to most students of philosophy today only as a lesser founding member of the Vienna Circle. It makes a strong case for the intrinsic interest and continuing relevance of much of Neurath’s thought to contemporary science studies, considered broadly. Together with several other recent works on Neurath, it forces a substantial revision in any assessment of the Vienna Circle and its legacy. Finally, it describes, in some detail, the often larger-than-life activities of this politically engaged European intellectual in the first, and darker, half of the century. Neurath, it turns out, was quite a remarkable person on several fronts, and at times, simultaneously.