Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T09:40:24.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - The scientific world conception: logical positivism

from 8 - Logic and philosophy: the analytic programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
Alan Richardson
Edited by
Thomas Baldwin
Alan Richardson
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Thomas Baldwin
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Logical positivism had almost as many names as it had roots. Among the terms used by its promoters were: logical positivism, logical empiricism, scientific empiricism, consistent empiricism, and other, similar names. All these names came fairly late in the day, stemming from around 1930, when the work of the logical positivists was first being brought before the English-speaking philosophical community. The initial public statement by the Vienna Circle, the Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis (Scientific World Conception: The Vienna Circle; Neurath et al. 1929 [1973]), eschews all of these terms, adopting instead the general term ‘scientific world conception’. This term was chosen in self-conscious opposition to the then dominant idealist, conservative, Catholic Austrian Weltanschauung philosophy. The Vienna Circle offered a scientific way of conceiving the world, not an intuitive grasp of the world’s ineffable essence and meaning.

The more general term is useful. It warns us away from expecting to find a short-list of doctrines about which the logical positivists agreed. It reminds us, also, that logical positivism grew up in an Austro-Germanic context. This context provided much of the philosophical training of the logical positivists; it also supplied the arationalist philosophical perspectives, Weltanschauungslehre and Lebensphilosophie (philosophy of life), against which the Vienna Circle publicly situated itself. Thus, while I will here, for ease of reference, employ the term ‘logical positivism’, the reader should bear in mind that this term suggests a greater commonality of project than one actually finds among the logical positivists (for attempts to situate the development of logical positivism within its broader intellectual context, see the essays in Uebel 1991 and Giere and Richardson 1996, as well as Galison 1990; the essential reference work on the career of logical positivism is Stadler 1997).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870–1945 , pp. 391 - 400
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth, and Logic, London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
Bell, D. and Vossenkuhl, W. (1992). Science and Subjectivity: The Vienna Circle and Twentieth-Century Philosophy, Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1922). Der Raum (Space), Berlin: Reuther und Reichard.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1928a). Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Weltkreis. Trans. 1967 George, R., The Logical Structure of the World, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1928b). Scheinproblems in der Philosophy, Berlin: Weltkreis. Trans. 1967 George, R., Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache, Vienna: Springer Verlag. Trans. 1937 Smeaton, A., The Logical Syntax of Language, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936–7). ‘Testability and Meaning’, Philosophy of Science 3; 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936). ‘Von Erkenntnistheorie zur Wissenschaftslogik’ (‘From Epistemology to the Logic of Science’), in Actes du Congrès Internationale de Philosophie Scientifique, Sorbonne, Paris, 1935, vol. I, Paris: Hermann and Cie.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and Necessity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963). ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, in Schilpp, P. A. (1963).Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., Fleck, L., Cat, J. and Uebel, T. E. (1996). Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1991). The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap: To the Vienna Station, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). ‘Unity of Science as a Social Problem’ in Neurath, O., Carnap, R., and Morris, C. W. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. I, no 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1939). Theory of Valuation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. (1934). ‘The Logical Character of the Principle of Induction’, Philosophy of Science 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, H. (1945). ‘Operationism and Scientific Method’, Psychological Review 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1987). ‘Carnap’s Aufbau Reconsidered’, Noûs 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1992). ‘Epistemology in the Aufbau’, Synthèse 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1990). ‘Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism’, Critical Inquiry 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1996). ‘Constructing Modernism: The Cultural Location of Aufbau’ in Giere, and Richardson, (1996).Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. and Richardson, A. W. (1996). Origins of Logical Empiricism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Haller, R. and Stadler, F. (1993). Wien-Berlin-Prag: Der Aufstieg der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie (Vienna-Berlin-Prague: The Rise of Scientific Philosophy), Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Haller, R. (1982). Schlick und Neurath. Ein Symposion (Schlick and Neurath: A Symposium), Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1942). ‘The Function of General Laws in History’, Journal of Philosophy 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1945). ‘Studies in the Logic of Confirmation’, Mind 54.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1975). Rudolf Carnap, Logical Empiricist: Materials and Perspectives, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuinness, B. (1985). Zurück zu Schlick. Eine Neubewertung von Werk und Wirkung (Back to Schlick. A New Evaluation of his Work and Influence), Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Morris, C. W. (1937). Logical Positivism, Pragmatism and Scientific Empiricism, Paris: Hermann et Cie.Google Scholar
Moulines, C. U. (1991). ‘Making Sense of Carnap’s Aufbau’, Erkenntnis 35Google Scholar
Nemeth, E. and Stadler, F. (1996). Encyclopedia and Utopia: The Life and Work of Otto Neurath (1882–1945), Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nemeth, E. (1981). Otto Neurath und der Wiener Kreis, Wissenschaftlichkeit als revolutionärer politischer Anspruch (Scientific Status as Revolutionary Politics), Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Neurath, O., Carnap, R., and Hahn, H. (1929). Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis, Vienna: Wolf. Trans. 1973 Foulkes, P. and Neurath, M., ‘Scientific World Conception. The Vienna Circle’ in Neurath, O. (ed. Neurath, M. and Cohen, R. S.), Empiricism and Sociology, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1931). Empirische Soziologie, Vienna: Springer. Partial Trans. 1973 Foulkes, P. and Neurath, M., ‘Empirical Sociology’ in Neurath, O. (ed. Neurath, M. and Cohen, R. S.), Empiricism and Sociology, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. (1933). Einheitswissenschaft und Psychologie, Vienna: Gerold. Trans. 1987 Kraal, H., ‘Unified Science and Psychology’ in McGuinness, B. (ed.), The Unity of Science, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1944). Foundations of the Social Sciences, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, P. and Nemeth, E. (1994). Otto Neurath oder die Einheit von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (Otto Neurath or the Unity of Science and Society). Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Oberdan, T. (1993). Protocols, Truth and Convention, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Proust, J. (1986). Questione de Forme: Logique et proposition analytique de Kant à Carnap, Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard. Trans. 1989 Brenner, A., Questions of Form: Logic and the Analytic Proposition from Kant to Carnap, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Quine, W. V. (1936). ‘Truth by Convention’ in Lee, O. H. (ed.), Philosophical Essays for A. N. Whitehead, New York: Longman. Reprinted 1976 in Quine, W. V., The Ways of Paradox, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1942). Mathematical Logic, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1920). Relativitätstheorie und Erkenntnis Apriori, Berlin: Springer Verlag. Trans. 1965 Reichenbach, M., The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1924). Axiomatik der relativistischen Raum-Zeit-Lehre, Braunschweig: Vieweg. Trans. 1969 Reichenbach, M., Axiomatization of the Theory of Relativity, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1928). Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre, Berlin: de Gruyter. Trans. 1958 Reichenbach, M. and Freund, J., The Philosophy of Space and Time, New York: Dover.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1935). Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre (Probability Theory), Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and Prediction, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1939). ‘Dewey’s Theory of Science’ in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of John Dewey, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1944). Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1951). The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1956). The Direction of Time, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. A. (1994). ‘Planning Science: Otto Neurath and the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science’, British Journal for the History of Science 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (1997a). ‘Toward a History of Scientific Philosophy’, Perspectives on Science 5Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (1997b). ‘Two Dogmas about Logical Empiricism’, Philosophical Topics 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (1998). Carnap’s Construction of the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ricketts, T. G. (1994). ‘Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance, Empiricism and Conventionalism’ in Clark, P. and Hale, B. (eds.), Reading Putnam, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Runggaldier, E. (1984). Carnap’s Early Conventionalism: An Inquiry into the Background of the Vienna Circle, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1979). Hans Reichenbach: Logical Empiricist, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. and Wolters, G. (1994). Logic, Language, and the Structure of Scientific Theories, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sauer, W. (1989). ‘On the Kantian Background of Neopositivism’, Topoi 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilpp, P. A. (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1910). ‘Das Wesen der Wahrheit nach der modernen Logik’, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie 34 Trans. 1979 Heath, P., ‘The Nature of Truth in Modern Logic’ in Schlick, M. (ed. Mulder, H. L. and Velde-Schlick, B. F. B.), Philosophical Papers, vol. I, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1917). Raum und Zeit in der gegenwärtigen Physik, Berlin: Springer Verlag. Trans. 1979 Heath, P., ‘Space and Time in Contemporary Physics’ in Schlick, M. (ed. Mulder, H. L. and Velde-Schlick, B. F. B.), Philosophical Papers, vol. I, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlick, M. (1918, 1925). Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre, Berlin: Springer. Trans. of 2nd edn 1974 Blumberg, A. and Feigl, H., General Theory of Knowledge, La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1930). ‘Die Wende der Philosophie’, Erkenntnis 1 Trans. 1979 Heath, P., ‘The Turning-Point in Philosophy’ in Schlick, M. (ed. Mulder, H. L. and Velde-Schlick, B. F. B.), Philosophical Papers, vol. II, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlick, M. (1932). ‘Positivismus und Realismus’, Erkenntnis 3 Trans. 1979 Heath, P., ‘Positivism and Realism’ in Schlick, M. (ed. Mulder, H. L. and Velde-Schlick, B. F. B.), Philosophical Papers, vol. II, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlick, M. (1934). ‘Über das Fundament der Erkenntnis’, Erkenntnis 4 Trans. 1979 Heath, P., ‘On the Foundation of Knowledge’ in Schlick, M. (ed. Mulder, H. L. and Velde-Schlick, B. F. B.), Philosophical Papers, vol. II, Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, F. (1991). ‘Aspects of the Social Background and Position of the Vienna Circle at the University of Vienna’ in Uebel, (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, F. (1993). Scientific Philosophy: Origins and Developments, Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, F. (1997). Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Trans. 2001 Nielsen, C., The Vienna Circle: Studies in the Origins, Development and Influence of Logical Empiricism, Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. (1991). Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle, Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. E. (1992). Overcoming Logical Positivism from Within: The Emergence of Neurath’s Naturalism in the Vienna Circle’s Protocol Sentence Debate, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. (1996a). ‘Anti-Foundationalism and the Vienna Circle’s Revolution in Philosophy’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, T. E. (1996b). ‘The Enlightenment Ambition of Epistemic Utopianism: Otto Neurath’s Theory of Science in Historical Perspective’ in Giere, and Richardson, (1996).Google Scholar
Zolo, D. (1989). Reflexive Epistemology: The Philosophical Legacy of Otto Neurath, Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×