Michael Heidelberger

The main claim of this talk is that mathematical physics and philosophy of physics are not different. This claim, so formulated, is obviously false because it is overstated; however, since no non-tautological statement is likely to be completely true, it is a meaningful question whether the overstated claim expresses some truth. I hope it does, or so I’ll argue. The argument consists of two parts: First I’ll recall some characteristic features of von Neumann’s work on mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics and will claim that von Neumann’s motivation and results are essentially philosophical in their nature; hence, to the extent von Neumann’s work exemplifies what is considered to be mathematical physics, mathematical physics appears as formally explicit philosophy of physics. The second argument is based on a rather trivial interpretation of what mathematical physics is. That interpretation implies that mathematical physics shares some key characteristic features with philosophy of physics which make the two almost indistinguishable.

It is widely held that the current debate on the mind-body problem in analytic philosophy began during the 1950s at two distinct sources: one in America, de- riving from Herbert Feigl's writings, and the other in Australia, related to writings by U. T. Place and J. J. C. Smart (Feigl [1958] 1967). Jaegwon Kim recently wrote that "it was the papers by Smart and Feigl that introduced the mind-body problem as a mainstream metaphysical Problematik of analytical philosophy, and launched the debate that has continued to this day" (Kim 1998, 1). Nonetheless, it is not at all obvious why these particular articles sparked a debate, nor why Feigl's work in particular came to play such a prominent part in it, nor how and to what extent Feigl's approach rests on the logical empiricism he endorsed

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.