Alan Richardson

This book is a major contribution to the history of analytic philosophy in general and of logical positivism in particular. It provides the first detailed and comprehensive study of Rudolf Carnap, one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century philosophy. The focus of the book is Carnap's first major work: Der logische Aufbau der Welt. It reveals tensions within the context of German epistemology and philosophy of science in the early twentieth century. Alan Richardson argues that Carnap's move to philosophy of science in the 1930s was largely an attempt to dissolve the tension in his early epistemology. This book fills a significant gap in the literature on the history of twentieth-century philosophy. It will be of particular importance to historians of analytic philosophy, philosophers of science, and historians of science.

The distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification, this distinction dear to the projects of logical empiricism, was, as is well known, introduced in precisely those terms by Hans Reichenbach in his Experience and Prediction (Reichenbach 1938). Thus, while the idea behind the distinction has a long history before Reichenbach, this text from 1938 plays a salient role in how the distinction became canonical in the work of philosophers of science in the mid twentieth century. The new contextualist history of philosophy that has arisen in recent years invites us into an investigation of the nuances of philosophical distinctions and their roles in shaping the development of disciplines. Logical empiricism played a key role in the historical development of philosophy of science and this contextualist history has revealed a much richer set of projects in logical empiricism than the potted histories had allowed. Many stories have been told about the contexts of justification and discovery; few of those stories have paid more than passing attention to the larger projects in epistemology and meta-epistemology that Reichenbach was pursuing when he drew the distinction. This brief essay will seek partially to rectify that lack in, I hope, a somewhat surprising way. I shall stress the connection between this canonical distinction and some other epistemological and social terms that loom large in Reichenbach’s text, arguing that the social relevance of scientific philosophy for Reichenbach cannot be set aside in understanding his use of the DJ distinction. My point is, therefore, historical and reflexive. If we attend to the larger significance of the project in scientific philosophy that Reichenbach was advancing, we can see more clearly why the DJ distinction was introduced and rethink the significance of questioning the distinction.

Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, philosophers of various sorts, including Helmholtz, Avenarius, Husserl, Russell, Carnap, Neurath, and Heidegger, were united in promulgating a new, “scientific” philosophy. This article documents some of the varieties of scientific philosophy and argues that the history of scientific philosophy is crucial to the development of analytic philosophy and the division between analytic and continental philosophy. Scientific philosophy defined itself via criticisms of old-fashioned systematic metaphysics and, in the twentieth century, of Lebensphilosophie. It offered a modernist vision of philosophy participating in a progressive, problem-solving, piecemeal, and collaborative scientific ethos. The article argues that the rise of scientific philosophy indicates a change of the conception of science as well as philosophy in the late nineteenth century and notes some tensions in the accounts of science offered by scientific philosophers. The article offers some preliminary lessons for the interpretation of logical empiricism and phenomenology as episodes within a larger history of scientific philosophy.

Reprising and revising a question from Longino regarding an earlier phase of standpoint theory, I raise some issues regarding the place of a substantive normative social theory in the strong objectivity project in Harding’s recent book, Objectivity and Diversity. I offer reasons to think the issue needs to be reframed in the co-constructionist and pluralist setting of the new book but that interesting issues continue to arise in thinking about the philosophical resources feminist philosophies of science can or might rely on.

This is an important volume for rounding out our understanding of the origins and dimensions of the logical empiricist project. While the existence of a Berlin wing of logical empiricism—personified principally in Hans Reichenbach and Carl G. Hempel—has been well known, in the recent reappraisal literature the spotlight has been firmly on the Vienna Circle. [...] The essays give an expansive sense of the German-Berlin context of the work of not only Reichenbach and Hempel but also their philosophical colleagues Kurt Grelling, Walter Dubislav, and Paul Oppenheim, their philosophical mentors and influences including Leonard Nelson and the Friesian School and Ernst Cassirer, their scientific and mathematical influences including Albert Einstein, David Hilbert, and Bertrand Russell, as well as their scientific colleagues such as Kurt Lewin and Wolfgang Köhler.

In lieu of a programmatic argument about the general relations of history of science and philosophy of science, this essay offers a particular topic in the history of philosophy of science that should be of interest to both historians and philosophers of science. It argues that questions typical of contemporary history of science could illuminate the recent history of philosophy of science and analytic philosophy. It also suggests that the history of scientific philosophy is a particularly fruitful arena for historians of science interested in issues of marginal science

The text- and argument-focused histories of philosophy that we have are mainly interested in teasing out the details of the positions taken on philosophical issues by individual philosophers. But this is a long way from having a historical explanation of the larger-scale trajectory of philosophical development. An empirical history of philosophy, however, examines the institutionalized places and venues for philosophical work that provide a rich, shared structure for the promotion of particular sorts of work. Mid-twentieth-century philosophers of science such as Herbert Feigl and Philipp Frank knew what they were doing—they were creating the space to promote certain sorts of work in venues such as the Institute for the Unity of Science and the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science and, ultimately, in publication venues such as Daedalus and the Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science. Here the engine of progress is the institution-building activity of committed philosophers making a space within the institutional structures of philosophy for their own projects and other projects aligned with them and transmitting these as live philosophical projects to the next generation.

É uma questão de algum interesse histórico e filosófico pensar por que razão o empirismo lógico veio a perder o seu estatuto de projeto filosófico a adotar, e como tal aconteceu. Afinal, como este volume amplamente demonstrou, o empirismo lógico foi um projeto de ponta na filosofia analítica num passado não tão distante, e, de fato, o projeto preeminente em certos ramos da filosofia, como a filosofia da ciência. Algo de substancial tem de ter acontecido para tal projeto ter declinado tão consideravelmente em influência que mesmo o trabalho mais técnico em áreas como a teoria da confirmação ou a filosofia da física não possa hoje ser considerado um exemplo da filosofia da ciência do empirismo lógico.

This symposia-papers volume is the second volume of essays from the PSA 2008 program. The vast majority of the work in putting together this volume fell to the program committee. The members of this committee began the adjudication process with over 200 submitted papers and went through two rounds of selection, first for the program and then for this volume. Throughout, they all worked diligently and in good humor. So, I would like to thank Ken Aizawa, Rachel Ankeny, Davis Baird, Paul Bartha, Anjan Chakravartty, Hasok Chang, Sharyn Clough, Carla Fehr, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Brad Monton, Mark Risjord, Laura Ruetsche, Kyle Stanford, Friedrich Steinle, and Peter Vranas. In addition to papers from symposia presented at PSA 2008, we hope the selection of symposia reveals the widening range of philosophical expertise within the PSA.

History of analytic philosophy has been an active, going concern within analytic philosophy for decades — one can scarcely imagine analytic philosophy being continued with some serious attention paid to the work of founders such as Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. History of philosophy of science has become an explicit part of the philosophical agenda in the past quarter century or so. These areas of research importantly overlap — logical empiricism, in particular, was an episode in both histories. One might be forgiven for thinking, given all this, that the question of the relations of analytic philosophy to philosophy of science in the twentieth century would have been importantly thematized in both sorts of history and that the historical relations between analytic philosophy and philosophy of science would be, by now, a well-tilled field.

This contributed-papers volume is the first volume of essays from the PSA 2008 program. The vast majority of the work in putting together this volume fell to the program committee. The members of this committee began the adjudication process with over 200 submitted papers and went through two rounds of selection, first for the program and then for this volume. Throughout, they all worked diligently and in good humor. So, I would like to thank Ken Aizawa, Rachel Ankeny, Davis Baird, Paul Bartha, Anjan Chakravartty, Hasok Chang, Sharyn Clough, Carla Fehr, Peter Godfrey-Smith, Brad Monton, Mark Risjord, Laura Ruetsche, Kyle Stanford, Friedrich Steinle, and Peter Vranas.

This essay examines the perspective from which Bas van Fraassen, in his book, The Empirical Stance, explains the project of empiricism. I argue that this perspective is a robustly transcendental perspective, which suggests that the tradition of empiricism lacks the resources to explain itself. I offer an alternative history of epistemic voluntarism in twentieth-century philosophy to the history van Fraassen himself provides, one that finds the novelty in van Fraassen's own views to be precisely his reintroduction of the knowing mind into the tradition of analytic philosophy of science