Michael Heidelberger

Der Weltbildbegriff, wie er sich im 19. Jahrhundert herausgebildet hat, bezeichnet die zusammenfassende Darstellung der Welt gemäß den Ergebnissen der Naturwissenschaften. Mehr oder weniger untergründig ist damit aber noch mehr mitgemeint: eine aus der Wissenschaft fließende Weltdeutung, die sich an die Stelle der überkommenen Sinnorientierungen und deren Instanzen setzt. Die wissenschaftliche Forschung des späten 19. Jahrhunderts sah sich diesem Ziel der Weltdeutung aus Wissenschaft zum Greifen nahe. Die Generation jener Zeit lebte im Bewußtsein, wie es der Berliner Philosophieprofessor Friedrich Paulsen 1902 ausdrückte, daß die exakte Forschung „uns den Boden unter den Füssen sichern und uns ein treues Weltbild geben“ werde. Man erhoffte sich „eine allseitige und vollständig gesicherte Weltanschauung und eine in notwendigen Gedanken befestigte Lebensweisheit.“.

The term “historical epistemology” can be read in two different ways: (1) as referring to a program of ‘historicizing’ epistemology, in the sense of a critique of traditional epistemology’s tendency to gloss over historical context, or (2) as a manifesto of ‘epistemologizing’ history, i.e. as a critique of radical historicist and relativist approaches. In this paper I will defend a position in this second sense. I show that one can account for the historical development and diversity of science without disavowing the relevance of a (normatively understood) epistemology and without denying the existence of human cognitive universals across historical and cultural differences. In support of my thesis, I draw on cognitive scientific research on causal and symbolic cognition, arguing that causal understanding constitutes a basic part of science, which, in the course of its development, becomes more and more superimposed by a culturally and historically variable symbolic superstructure

Naturphilosophie refers to the philosophy of nature prevalent especially in German phi- losophy, science and literary movements from around 1790 to about 1830. It pleaded for an organic and dynamic worldview as an alternative to the atomist and mechanist outlook of modern science. Against the Cartesian dualism of matter and mind which had given way to the mechanist materialism of the French Encyclopedists, Spinoza’s dual aspect theory of mind and matter as two modes of a single substance was favoured. The sources of this heterogene- ous movement lie in the philosophy of German idealism as well as in late classicism and Ro- manticism. The leading figure, Schelling, assimilated and stimulated the major trends and ideas through his work.

Wenn hier Fechners Philosophie als „wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffassung“ bezeichnet wird, dann soll damit gesagt werden, dass Fechner mit seiner Philosophie einen wissenschaftlichen Anspruch verfolgt hat und dass sie tatsächlich auf einem weltanschauungsfreien Fundament ruht. Ich möchte sogar so weit gehen zu behaupten, dass Fechner damit zur Tradition der „wissenschaftlichen Philosophie“ des 19. Jahrhunderts zu rechnen ist, deren folgenreichstes späteres Produkt im 20. Jahrhundert der logische Empirismus darstellt. Der „Wiener Kreis“ als die bekannteste Schule dieser Tradition bediente sich (in seinem Manifest von 1929) des Ausdrucks „Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung“, um sich von allen spekulativen Weltanschauungen abzugrenzen.

Im Rahmen der vorjährigen "Third International History of Philosophy of Science Conference” (HOPOS 2000) an der Universität Wien wurden die politische Bedeutung und der kulturelle Kontext der aus Wien stammenden, jedoch vertriebenen Wissenschaftsphilosophie in einem eigenen Programmschwerpunkt thematisiert. In je vier deutschsprachigen und englischsprachigen Beiträgen werden im vorliegenden Band die historische und politische Bedingtheit und Relevanz des Wiener Kreises bis zur Philosophy of Science im angloamerikanischen Raum behandelt. Somit wird die Entwicklung der Wissenschaftsphilosophie in Österreich (mit einem Blick auf Deutschland) von der Ersten zur Zweiten Republik bzw. die Wirkungsgeschichte dieser Emigrationswissenschaft vor allem in den USA aus gegenwärtiger Perspektive kritisch beleuchtet. Die Beiträge von u.a. Hans Joachim Dahms, Gernot Heiss, Don A. Howard und Alan Richardson zeigen, dass "Reine" Wissenschaftstheorie Teil eines gesellschaftlichen Systems ist und von dessen Pluralität und Toleranz lebt, aber auch immer einen Seismografen des kulturellen Klimas darstellt.

Ludwig Büchner wrote one of the most popular and polemical books of the strong materialist movement in the later nineteenth-century Germany, his Kraft und Stoff (Force and Matter) (1855). He tried to develop a comprehensive worldview, which was based solely on the findings of empirical science and did not take refuge in religion or any other transcendent categories in explaining nature and its development, including human beings. When Büchner tried to expose the backwardness of traditional philosophical and religious views in scientific matters, his arguments had some force, but the positive part of his programme was not free of superficiality and naivety. Büchner’s writings helped to strengthen progressive and rational traditions inside and outside philosophy, but they can also serve as the prime example of the uncritical nineteenth- century belief in science’s capacity to redeem humankind from all evil.

The following article treats the 'applicational turn' of modern fluid dynamics as it set in at the beginning of the 20th century with Ludwig Prandtl's concept of the boundary layer. It seeks to show that there is much more to applying a theory in a highly mathematical field like fluid dynamics than deriving a special case from a general explanatory theory under particular antecedent conditions. In Prandtl's case, the decisive move was to introduce a model that provided a physical/causal conception of viscous flow at high Reynolds numbers. It facilitated an approximate solution to the Navier-Stokes equations, which in turn gave rise to many special applications. After a detailed account of Prandtl's achievement, the article discusses the role of the physical model and its experimental and mathematical significance. It is shown that the mathematical simplification provided by the physical model greatly expanded the explanatory capacity of the theory which the Navier-Stokes equations alone could not provide.

Preface to Volumes 1 and 2 Lorenz Krüger xv Introduction to Volume 1 Lorraine J. Daston 1 I Revolution 1 What Are Scientific Revolutions? Thomas S. Kuhn 7 2 Scientific Revolutions, Revolutions in Science, and a Probabilistic Revolution 1800-1930 I. Bernard Cohen 23 3 Was There a Probabilistic Revolution 1800-1930? Ian Hacking 45 II Concepts 4 The Slow Rise of Probabilism: Philosophical Arguments in the Nineteenth Century Lorenz Krüger 59 5 The Decline of the Laplacian Theory of Probability: A Study of Stumpf, von Kries, and Meinong Andreas Kamlah 91 6 Fechner’s Indeterminism: From Freedom to Laws of Chance Michael Heidelberger 117 7 The Saint Petersburg Paradox 1713-1937 Gerard Jorland 157 8 Laplace and Thereafter: The Status of Probability Calculus in the Nineteenth Century Ivo Schneider 191 9 Emile Borel as a Probabilist Eberhard Knobloch 215 III Uncertainty 10 The Domestication of Risk: Mathematical Probability and Insurance 1650-1830 237 11 The Objectification of Observation: Measurement and Statistical Methods in the Nineteenth Century Zeno G. Swijtink 261 12 The Measurement of Uncertainty in Nineteenth-Century Social Science Stephen M. Stigler 287 IV Society 13 Rational Individuals versus Laws of Society: From Probability to Statistics Lorraine J. Daston 295 14 Decrire, Compter, Calculer: The Debate over Statistics during the Napoleonic Period Marie-Noelle Bourguet 305 15 Probability in Vital and Social Statistics: Quetelet, Farr, and the Bertillons Bernard-Pierre Lécuyer 317 16 Paupers and Numbers: The Statistical Argument for Social Reform in Britain during the Period of Industrialization Karl H. Metz 337 17 Lawless Society: Social Science and the Reinterpretation of Statistics in Germany, 1850-1880 Theodore M. Porter 351 18 Prussian Numbers 1860-1882 Ian Hacking 377 19 How Do Sums Count? On the Cultural Origins of Statistical Causality M. Norton Wise 395.

This article deals with Moritz Schlick's critical realism and its sources that dominated his philosophy until about 1925. It is shown that his celebrated analysis of Einstein's relativity theory is the result of an earlier philosophical discussion about space perception and its role for the theory of space. In particular, Schlick's "method of coincidences" did not owe anything to "entirely new principles" based on the work of Einstein, Poincaré or Hilbert, as claimed by Michael Friedman, but was already in place before these principles were developed. The first part of the article is devoted to Alois Riehl's critical realism—a neo-Kantian variant which rejects the dominant interpretation of the thing-in-itself as a mere limiting concept and takes empirical theories of space perception into consideration. The second part deals with the central role of "Psychological Parallelism" for Riehl and its integration with Kant's epistemology. In the third part it is shown that Schlick's theory of knowledge is based on Riehl's intricate reworking of Kantian epistemology, physiological psychology, theory of sense perception and philosophy of mathematics. The conclusion stresses the position of the unity of consciousness in Riehl's philosophy which Schlick admittedly cannot cope with

Since the late 1950s one of the most important and influential views of post-positivist philosophy of science has been the theory-ladenness of observation. It comes in at least two forms: either as a psychological law pertaining to human perception (whether scientific or not) or as conceptual insight concerning the nature and functioning of scientific language and its meaning. According to its psychological form, perceptions of scientists, as perceptions of humans generally, are guided by prior beliefs and expectations, and perception has a peculiar holist character. In its conceptual form it maintains that scientists’ observations rest on the theories they accept and that the meaning of the observational terms involved depends upon the theoretical context in which they occur. Frequently, these two versions are combined with each other and give rise to a constructivist view of scientific knowledge (I shall use the term “constructivism” roughly in the same way as Golinski [1998, chap. 1]). According to this outlook, our experience is categorized and preconditioned by prior belief since the process of gaining knowledge through science always involves the use of concepts from some theory or other. This view can easily be strengthened to serve as the cornerstone of a constructivist and anti-empiricist account of science: The categories in terms of which we carve up our experience are not read off from the external world but follow from prior theoretical commitments.