Carnap, R. (1926/2019). “Physikalische Begriffsbildung/Physical Concept Formation.” In CW1, 339–424.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1927). “Eigentliche und uneigentliche Begriffe.” Symposion: Philosophische Zeitschrift für Forschung und Aussprache 1: 355–374.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1929). Abriss der Logistik. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R. (1929/2004). “Von Gott und Seele. Scheinfragen in Metaphysik und Theologie.” In Mormann, Th. (ed.), Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 49–63.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1930/2004). “Die Alte und die Neue Logik.” In Mormann, Th. (ed.), Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 63–80.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1931/1983). “The Logicist Foundations of Mathematics.” In Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–52.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1932/1987). “On Protocol Sentences.” Nous 21 (4): 457–470.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1932/2004). “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache.” In Mormann, Th. (ed.), Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 81–110.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1934). Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer. (LSS)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R. (1934). “Theoretische Fragen und praktische Entscheidungen.” Natur und Geist 2: 257–260.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1934/2013). The Unity of Science. Translated by Max Black. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1935). Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1935/1937). “Ein Gültigkeitskriterium für die Sätze der klassischen Mathematik.” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 42: 163–190. Translated into English in LSL, §34a–i.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1936). “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3 (4): 419–471; 4 (1): 1–40. (T&M)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1936). “Über die Einheitssprache der Wissenschaft. Logische Bemerkungen zum Projekt einer Enzyklopädie.” Acte du Congrès international de philosophie scientifique, Sorbonne, Paris 1935, 2. Unité de la science. Actualités scientifiques et industrielles 389: 60–70.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1936/1949). “Truth and Confirmation.” In Feigl, H. and Sellars, W. (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 119–127.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1937). “Logic.” In Douglas, E. et al. (eds.), Factors Determining Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 107–118.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1937). Logical Syntax of Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (LSL)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1938). “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science.” In Carnap, R., Morris, Ch., and Neurath, O. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 42–62.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1939). Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (FLM)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (IS)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1943). Formalization of Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (FoL)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1944). “The Problem of a World Language.” Books Abroad 18 (3): 303–304.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1945a). “The Two Concepts of Probability.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5: 513–532.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1945b). “On Inductive Logic.” Philosophy of Science 12 (2): 72–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R. (1947a). “Probability as a Guide in Life.” Journal of Philosophy 44: 141–148.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1947b). “On the Application of Inductive Logic.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8 (1): 133–148.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1947/1956). Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (M&N)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1950). “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue International de Philosophie 4 (11): 20–40. (ESO)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (LFP)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1952). The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (CIM)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1952). “Meaning Postulates.” Philosophical Studies 3: 65–73.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1955a). “Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages.” Philosophical Studies 6 (3): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R. (1955b). “On Some Concepts of Pragmatics.” Philosophical Studies 6: 89–91.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1956). “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts.” In Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds.), The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 38–76.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1958). “Beobachtungssprache und theoretische Sprache.” Dialectica 12 (3–4): 236–248.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1959/2000). “Rudolf Carnap’s Theoretical Concepts in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31 (1): 151–172.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1962). “The Aim of Inductive Logic.” In Nagel, E. et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 303–318.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (LFP2)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1963). “Intellectual Autobiography.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 3–84. (IA)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1963). “Replies and Systematic Expositions.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 859–1013. (RSE)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1966). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Basic Books. (IPoS)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1967). Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin-Schlachtensee: Weltkreis-Verlag [1928]. Quoted from the English translation, The Logical Structure of the World. Translated by R. A. George. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Aufbau)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1970). “Notes and News.” The Journal of Philosophy 67 (24): 1026–1029.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1971). “A Basic System of Inductive Logic.” In Carnap, R. and Jeffrey, R. C. (eds.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume I. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 35–165.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1972). “Notes on Semantics, 1955, Los Angeles.” Philosophia 2: 3–54.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1977). Two Essays on Entropy. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1990). “Quine on Analyticity [orig. 1952].” In Creath, R. (ed.), Dear Carnap, Dear Van. The Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related Work. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 427–432.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (2000). Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Axiomatik. Edited by Bonk, Th. and Mosterín, J.. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (2017). “Value Concepts (1958).” Synthese 194: 185–194.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (2019). The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings. Edited by Carus, A. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (CW1)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (2019). Der Raum: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftslehre / Space: A Contribution to the Theory of Science. In Carus, A. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S. (eds.), The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–171. (Raum)Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (2022a). Tagebücher 1908–1919. Herausgegeben von Christian Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von Brigitta Arden, Brigitte Parakenings, Roman Jordan und Lois M. Rendl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (2022b). Tagebücher 1920–1935. Herausgegeben von Christian Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von Brigitta Arden, Brigitte Parakenings, Roman Jordan und Lois M. Rendl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (in preparation). Tagebücher 1936–1970. Herausgegeben von Christian Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von Brigitta Arden, Philipp Bauer und Brigitte Parakenings. Hamburg: Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Carnap, R., and Bachmann, F. (1936/1981). “On Extremal Axioms.” History and Philosophy of Logic 2: 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, R., and Hochkeppel, W. (1993). “Interview mit Rudolf Carnap (1964).” In Rudolf Carnap: Mein Weg in die Philosophie. Übersetzt und mit einem Nachwort sowie einem Interview herausgegeben von Willy Hochkeppel. Stuttgart: Reclam, 133–148.Google Scholar

Carnap, R., and Jeffrey, R. C. (eds.). (1971). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume I. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R., Hahn, H., and Neurath, O. (1929/2012). Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis. Edited by Stadler, F. and Uebel, Th.. Vienna; New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Abi, B. et al. (2021). “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm.” Physical Review Letters 126: 141801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anderton, K. M. (1993). The Limits of Science: A Social, Political, and Moral Agenda for Epistemology in Nineteenth Century Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar

Andreas, H. (2007). Carnaps Wissenschaftslogik. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar

Andreas, H. (2021). “Theoretical Terms in Science.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theoretical-terms-science/.Google Scholar

Aray, B. (2019). “Louis Couturat, Modern Logic, and the International Auxiliary Language.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (5): 979–1001.Google Scholar

Awodey, S. (2007). “Carnap’s Quest for Analyticity. The Studies in Semantics.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226–247.Google Scholar

Awodey, S., and Carus, A. W. (2001). “Carnap, Completeness, and Categoricity: The Gabelbarkeitssatz of 1928.” Erkenntnis 54 (2): 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Awodey, S., and Carus, A. W. (2007). “Carnap’s Dream: Gödel, Wittgenstein, and Logical, Syntax.” Synthese 159 (1): 23–45.Google Scholar

Awodey, S., and Carus, A. W. (2009). “From Wittgenstein’s Prison to the Boundless Ocean. Carnap’s Dream of Logical Syntax.” In Wagner, P. (ed.), Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 79–106.Google Scholar

Awodey, S., and Reck, E. (2002). “Completeness and Categoricity, Part 1: 19th Century Axiomatics to 20th Century Metalogic.” History and Philosophy of Logic 23: 1–30.Google Scholar

Awodey, S., and Reck, E. (2004). Frege’s Lectures on Logic: Carnap’s Student Notes 1910–1914. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, Truth and Logic. 2nd ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J. (1946/1954). “Freedom and Necessity.” In Philosophical Essays. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 271–284.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J. (1957). “The Conception of Probability as a Logical Relation.” In Korner, S. (ed.), Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics. New York: Dover, 12–17.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J. et al. (1968). “Repression in Mexico.” New York Times, December 25.Google Scholar

Baccarat, L. (2024). “Neurath’s Anticorrespondentism and Avenarius.” In Damböck, Ch., Friedl, J., and Höfer, U. (eds.), Ways of the Scientific World-Conception. Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath. Amsterdam: Brill-Rodopi.Google Scholar

Beaney, M. (2013). “The Historiography of Analytic Philosophy.” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 30–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaney, M. (2016). “Historiography, Philosophy of History and the Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 10: 211–234.Google Scholar

Beaney, M. (2020). “Two Dogmas of Analytic Historiography.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28: 594–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bentley, J. (2023). Logical Empiricism and Naturalism. Neurath and Carnap’s Meta-theory of Science. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Bergson, H. (1903/1913/1973). An Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by T. E. Hulme. Houndsmills; Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bernays, P. (1967). “Hilbert, D.” In Edwards, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3. New York: Macmillan, 496–505.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. (1996). “Analyticity Reconsidered.” Nous 30: 360–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohnert, H. G. (1975). “Carnap’s Logicism.” In Hintikka, J. (ed.), Rudolf Carnap: Logical Empiricist. Dodrecht: Reidel, 183–216.Google Scholar

Borsanyi, S. et al. (2021). “Leading Hadronic Contribution to the Muon Magnetic Moment from Lattice QCD.” Nature 393 (April 7): 51–55.Google Scholar

Bright, L. K. (2017). “Logical Empiricists on Race.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 65: 9–18.Google Scholar

Bright, L. K. (2018). “Du Bois’ Democratic Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” Synthese 195 (5): 2227–2245.Google Scholar

Brozek, A. (2022). “Jan Lukasiewicz’s Program of the Logicization of Philosophy: Its Genesis, Content and Realizations.” Synthese. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03699-7.Google Scholar

Brun, G. (2016). “Explication as a Method of Conceptual Re-engineering.” Erkenntnis 81: 1211–1241.Google Scholar

Brun, G. (2020). “Conceptual Re-engineering: From Explication to Reflective Equilibrium.” Synthese 197: 925–954.Google Scholar

Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., and Plunckett, D. (eds.) (2020). Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burke, Ch., Kindel, E., and Walker, S. (eds.) (2013). Isotype: Design and Contexts, 1925–1971. London: Hyphen Press.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, A. (1897). Friedrich Wilhelm Dörpfeld. Aus seinem Leben und Wirken. Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar

Carus, A. W. (1999). “Carnap, Syntax, and Truth.” In Peregrin, J. (ed.), Truth and Its Nature (If Any). Dordrecht: Springer, 15–35.Google Scholar

Carus, A. W. (2007). Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought: Explication as Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carus, A. W. (2013). “History and the Future of Logical Empiricism.” In Reck, E. (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. London: Palgrave, 261–293.Google Scholar

Carus, A. W. (2017). “Carnapian Rationality.” Synthese 194: 163–184.Google Scholar

Carus, A. W. (2019). “Neurath and Carnap on Semantics.” In Cat, J. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), Neurath Reconsidered: New Sources and Perspectives. Cham: Springer, 339–361.Google Scholar

Carus, A.W. (2021). “Werte beim frühen Carnap: Von den Anfängen bis zum Aufbau.” In Damböck, Ch. and Wolters, G. (eds.) Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935. Cham: Springer, 1–18.Google Scholar

Carus, A. W. (2022). “Die religiösen Ursprünge des Nonkognitivismus bei Carnap.” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 143–161.Google Scholar

Cassirer, E. (1929/1957). The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume Three: The Phenomenology of Knowledge. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Cassirer, E. (1946). The Myth of the State. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Castelvecchi, D. (2021). “Is the Standard Model Broken? Physicists Cheer Major Muon Result.” Nature (April 7). www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00898-z.Google Scholar

Church, A. (1943). “Review of Carnap’s Introduction to Semantics.” The Philosophical Review 52 (3): 298–304.Google Scholar

Cohnitz, D., and Rossberg, M. (2006). Nelson Goodman. Chesham: Acumen.Google Scholar

Comandon, A., and Ong, P. (2020). “South Los Angeles since the 1960s: Race, Place, and Class.” The Review of Black Political Economy 47 (1): 50–74.Google Scholar

Cote-Meek, S. (2014). Colonized Classrooms – Fernwood Publishing. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood.Google Scholar

Cournot, A. A. (1843). Exposition de la theorie des chances et des probabilités. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

Couturat, L. (1901). La Logique de Leibniz. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar

Couturat, L. (1910). Etude sur la Derivation dans la Langue Internationale. Paris: Delagrave.Google Scholar

Couturat, L., and Léau, L. (1903). Histoire de la Langue Universelle. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (1990a). Dear Carnap, Dear Van. The Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related Work. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (1990b). “The Unimportance of Semantics.” In Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 405–415.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (1996). “Languages without Logic.” In Giere, R. N. and Richardson, A. W. (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 251–265.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (1999). “Carnap’s Move to Semantics: Gains and Losses.” In Wolenski, J. and Köhler, E. (eds.), Alfred Tarski and the Vienna Circle. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 65–76.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (2003). “The Linguistic Doctrine and Conventionality: The Main Argument in ‘Carnap and Logical Truth.’” In Hardcastle, G. L. and Richardson, A. (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 234–256.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (2012). “Before Explication.” In Wagner, P. (ed.), Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 161–174.Google Scholar

Creath, R. (forthcoming). “What Was Carnap Rejecting When He Rejected Metaphysics?” In Baxter, J., Bausman, W., and Lean, O. (eds.), Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Dahms, H.-J. (2004). “Neue Sachlichkeit in the Architecture and Philosophy of the 1920s.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. Chicago: Open Court, 357–376.Google Scholar

Dahms, H-J. (2016). “Carnap’s Early Conception of a ‘System of the Sciences’: The Importance of Wilhelm Ostwald.” In Damböck, Ch. (ed.), Influences on the Aufbau. Cham: Springer, 163–185.Google Scholar

Damböck, Ch. (ed.) (2016). Influences on the Aufbau. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Damböck, Ch. (2022a). “The Politics of Carnap’s Non-cognitivism and the Scientific World-Conception of Left-Wing Logical Empiricism.” Perspectives on Science 30 (4): 493–524.Google Scholar

Damböck, Ch. (2022b). “Carnap, Reichenbach, Freyer. Non-cognitivist Ethics and Politics in the Spirit of the German Youth-Movement.” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 163–180.Google Scholar

Damböck, Ch. (2022c). “Carnap’s Non-cognitivism and His Views on Religion, against the Background of the Herbartian Philosophy of His Grandfather Friedrich Wilhelm Dörpfeld.” In Ramharter, E. (ed.), The Vienna Circle and Religion. Cham: Springer, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damböck, Ch. (2024). “Entscheidungstheoretische, modallogische und metaethische Gesichtspunkte in Carnaps ‘Value Concepts (1958).’” In Ficara, E. et al. (eds.), Revisiting the History and Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics. London: College Publications.Google Scholar

Damböck, Ch., and Wolters, G. (2021). (eds.) Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.) (2022). Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Daston, L., and Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

De Morgan, A. (1847). Formal Logic: Or the Calculus of Inference Necessary and Probable. London: Taylor and Walton.Google Scholar

Dea, S. (2019). “Academic Freedom, Scholarly Responsibility and the New Gender Wars.” University Affairs (blog). August 2, 2019.Google Scholar

Dea, S. (2021). “The Evolving Social Purpose of Academic Freedom.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 31 (2): 199–222.Google Scholar

Demopoulos, W. (2013). Logicism and Its Philosophical Legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Demopoulos, W. (2021). “The Partial Interpretation of Scientific Theories.” In Limbeck-Lilienau, Ch. and Uebel, Th. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism. New York: Routledge, 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Devidi, D., and Solomon, G. (1995). “Tolerance and Metalanguages in Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language.” Synthese 103 (1): 123–139.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1971). “Theory of Valuation.” In Neurath, O., Morris, Ch., and Carnap, R. (eds.), Foundations of the Unity of Science II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 379–447.Google Scholar

Dewulf, F. (2017). “Rudolf Carnap’s Incorporation of the Geisteswissenschaften in the Aufbau.” HOPOS 7 (2017), 199–225.Google Scholar

Dewulf, F. (2021). “Carnap’s Opposition to Logic of the Geisteswissenschaften.” In Damböck, Ch., and Wolters, G. (eds.), Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935. Cham: Springer, 55–73.Google Scholar

Donaldson, Th. (2017). “The (Metaphysical) Foundations of Arithmetic?” Noûs 51 (4): 775–801.Google Scholar

Dörpfeld, F. W. (1895). Zur Ethik. Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar

Dreben, B. (1994). “In Mediis Rebus.” Inquiry 37: 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dutilh Novaes, C. (2018). “Carnapian Explication and Ameliorative Analysis: A Systematic Comparison.” Synthese 197: 1011–1034.Google Scholar

Dutilh Novaes, C. (2020). “Carnap Meets Foucault: Conceptual Engineering and Genealogical Investigations.” Inquiry. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1860122.Google Scholar

Dutilh Novaes, C., and Reck, E. (2017). “Carnapian Explication, Formalisms as Cognitive Tools, and the Paradox of Adequate Formalization.” Synthese 194: 195–215.Google Scholar

Ebbs, G. (2011). “Carnap and Quine on Truth by Convention.” Mind 120 (478): 193–237.Google Scholar

Ebbs, G. (2017). “Carnap on Ontology.” In Carnap, Quine, and Putnam on Methods of Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44–54.Google Scholar

Edmonds, D. (2020). The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1921). Geometrie und Erfahrung. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Falk, J. (1999). Women, Language and Linguistics. Three American Stories from the First Half of the Twentieth Century. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Feigl, H. et al. (1970). “Homage to Rudolf Carnap.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, XI–LXVI.Google Scholar

Feldbacher-Escamilla, Ch. (2021). “Carnap’s Conditions of Adequacy for Explications and Conceptual Engineering.” Logique et Analyse 256: 487–509.Google Scholar

Flocke, V. (2019). “Carnap’s Defense of Impredicative Definitions.” The Review of Symbolic Logic 12 (2): 372–404.Google Scholar

Flocke, V. (2020). “Carnap’s Noncognitivism about Ontology.” Noûs 54 (3): 527–548.Google Scholar

Forman, P. (1973). “Scientific Internationalism and the Weimar Physicists: The Ideology and Its Manipulation in Germany after World War I.” Isis 64 (2): 151–180.Google Scholar

Fox Keller, E. (1982). “Feminism and Science.” Signs 7 (3): 589–602.Google Scholar

Frege, G. (1884/1980). The Foundations of Arithmetic. Edited and translated by Austin, J. L.. New York: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Freyer, H. (1926). Der Staat. Leipzig: Ernst Wiegandt Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar

Freyer, H. (1930). “Ethische Normen und Politik.” Kant-Studien 35: 99–114.Google Scholar

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedman, M. (1988). “Logical Truth and Analyticity in Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language.” In Aspray, W. and Kitcher, P. (eds.), History and Philosophy of Mathematics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 82–94.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2000). A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2001). Dynamics of Reason. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2006). “Carnap and Quine: Twentieth-century echoes of Kant and Hume” Philosophical Topics 34: 35–58.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2010). “Synthetic History Reconsidered.” In Domski, M. and Dickson, M. (eds.), Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 571–814.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2011). “Carnap on Theoretical Terms.” Synthese 180: 249–263.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2018). “Carnap’s Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics.” In Reck, E. (ed.), Logic, Philosophy of Mathematics and Their History: Essays in Honor of W. W. Tait. London: College, 141–170.Google Scholar

Friedman, M., and Creath, R. (eds.) (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gabriel, G. (2004). “Carnap Brought Home.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 3–20.Google Scholar

Galison, P. (1990). “Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism.” Critical Inquiry 16 (4), 709–752.Google Scholar

Galison, P. (1998). “The Americanization of Unity.” Daedalus 127 (1): 45–71.Google Scholar

Galison, P. (2016). “Meanings of Scientific Unity: The Law, the Orchestra, the Pyramid, the Quilt and the Ring.” In Kamminga, H. and Somsen, G., (eds.), Pursuing the Unity of Science: Ideology and Scientific Practice from the Great War to the Cold War. London; New York: Routledge, 12–29.Google Scholar

Gandon, S. (2012). Russell’s Unknown Logicism: A Study in the History and Philosophy of Mathematics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

George, A. (1986). “Whence and Whither the Debate between Quine and Chomsky?” Journal of Philosophy 83: 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

George, A. (2011). “Quine’s Philosophical Legacy.” American Philosophical Quarterly 48: 301–304.Google Scholar

George, A. (2014). “Quine’s Indeterminacy” Harvard Review of Philosophy 21: 41–55.Google Scholar

Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. A Theory of Normative Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Glymour, C., and Eberhardt, F. (2008/2021). “Hans Reichenbach.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/reichenbach/.Google Scholar

Goldfarb, W. (1997). “Semantics in Carnap. A Rejoinder to Alberto Coffa.” Philosophical Topics 25 (2): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldfarb, W., and Ricketts, Th. (1992). “Carnap and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Bell, D. and Vossenkuhl, W. (eds.), Science and Subjectivity. The Vienna Circle and 20th Century Philosophy. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 61–78.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J., and Laks, B. (2019). Battle in the Mind Fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Good, I. J. (1966). “On the Principle of Total Evidence.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (4): 319–321.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. (1977). The Structure of Appearance. 3rd ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. (1990). A Study of Qualities. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Grattan-Guinness, I. (2000). The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870–1940. Logics, Set Theories and the Foundations of Mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Gödel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Gray, J. (2008). Plato’s Ghost: The Modernist Transformation of Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Greimann, D. (2007). “Das korrekte Explizieren von Begriffen.” Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 61: 261–282.Google Scholar

Greimann, D. (2012). “A Typology of Conceptual Explications.” Disputation 4 (34): 645–670.Google Scholar

Grelling, K. (1929). “Realism and Logic: An Investigation of Russell’s Metaphysics.” Monist 39: 501–520.Google Scholar

Habgood-Coote, J. (2021). “What’s the Point of Authors?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715539.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. (1975). The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hamami, Y. (2018). “Mathematical Inference and Logical Inference.” The Review of Symbolic Logic 11 (4): 665–704.Google Scholar

Hanson, S. O., and Hendricks, V. F. (eds.) (2018). Introduction to Formal Philosophy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Harman, G. (1996). “Analyticity Regained?” Nous 30: 392–400.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A. (1968). “Legal Responsibility and Excuses.” In Punishment and Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press, 28–53.Google Scholar

Hartimo, M. (2021). Husserl and Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haslanger, S. (2000). “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be?” Noûs 34 (1): 31–55.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. (1971/2019). “Instrumentalism in Language Planning.” In Rubin, J. and Jernudd, B. (eds.), Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. An East-West Center Book. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 267–276.Google Scholar

Hegselmann, R. (1979). Normativität und Rationalität. Zum Problem praktischer Vernunft in der Analytischen Philosophie. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar

Hegselmann, R. (1992). “Einleitung. Einheitswissenschaft: Das positive Paradigma des Logischen Empirismus.” In Schulte, J. and McGuinness, B. (eds.), Einheitswissenschaft. Frankfurt: Main Suhrkamp, 7–23.Google Scholar

Heidelberger, M. (2024). “Between Pietism and Herbartianism: Archaeological Vestiges in Carnap’s Thought.” In Damböck, Ch., Friedl, J., and Höfer, U. (eds.), Ways of the Scientific World-Conception. Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath. Amsterdam: Brill-Rodopi.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. (1958). “The Theoretician’s Dilemma.” In Feigl, H., Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 37–98.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. (1973). “Rudolf Carnap, Logical Empiricist.” Synthese 25 (3/4): 256–268.Google Scholar

Hilbert, D. (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Hirsch, E. (2011). Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hiz, H., and Swiggers, P. (1990). “Bloomfield the Logical Positivist.” Semiotica 79: 257–270.Google Scholar

Hofweber, Th. (2016). Ontology and the Ambitions of Metaphysic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hogben, L. (1943). Interglossa. A Draft of an Auxiliary for a Democratic World Order, Being an Attempt to Apply Semantic Principles to Language Design. Harmondsworth, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar

Hollinger, D. A. (2011). “The Unity of Knowledge and The Diversity of Knowers: Science as an Agent of Cultural Integration in the United States between the Two World Wars.” Pacific Historical Review 80 (2): 211–230.Google Scholar

Huttegger, S. M. (2017). The Probabilistic Foundations of Rational Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huttegger, S. M. (2019). “Analogical Predictive Probabilities.” Mind 128 (509): 1–37.Google Scholar

Hylton, P. (2007). Quine. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hylton, P. (2014). “Quine’s Naturalism Revisited.” In Harman, G. and Lepore, E. (eds). A Companion to W. V. O. Quine. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 148–162.Google Scholar

Hylton, P. (2019). “Carnap and Quine on Analyticity: The Nature of the Disagreement.” Nous 55: 445–462.Google Scholar

Hylton, P., and Kemp, G. (2019). “Willard Van Orman Quine.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/.Google Scholar

Imlay, T. C. (2016). “International Socialism at War, 1914–1918.” In Imlay, T. (ed.), The Practice of Socialist Internationalism: European Socialists and International Politics, 1914–1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–48.Google Scholar

“Interim Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom to the Academic Senate, Northern Section, of the University of California.” 1951. University of California.Google Scholar

“It’s Official – The Harper Government Muzzled Scientists. Some Say It’s Still Happening.” 2018. CBC. March 22. www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-muzzled-1.4588913.Google Scholar

Isaacson, D. (2002). “Carnap, Quine and Logical Truth.” In Bell, D. and Vossenkuhl, W. (eds.), Science and Subjectivity. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 100–130.Google Scholar

Jansen, A. (1996). “ISOTYPE and Infographics.” In Nemeth, E. and Stadler, F. (eds.), Encyclopedia and Utopia: The Life and Work of Otto Neurath (1882–1945). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 143–156.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.) (1980). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. II. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. (1990). The Logic of Decision. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. (1992). Probability and the Art of Judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. (1994). “Carnap’s Voluntarism.” In Prawitz, D., Skyrms, B., and Westerståhl, D., eds. Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science IX. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 847–866.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. C. (2004). Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1925). Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Oslo: H. Aschehong.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1933/2010). “Nature and Art in Language.” In Selected Writings of Otto Jespersen. London: Allen & Unwin, 387–399.Google Scholar

Johnson, W. E. (1924). Logic, Part III: The Logical Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson, W.E. (1932). “Probability: The Deductive and Inductive Problems.” Mind 41: 409–423.Google Scholar

Joseph, J. (2002). From Whitney to Chomsky. Essays in the History of American Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kamminga, H., and Somsen, G. (eds.) (2016). Pursuing the Unity of Science: Ideology and Scientific Practice from the Great War to the Cold War. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1948). “Models of Logical Systems.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 13: 16–30.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1955). “Fair Bets and Degree of Confirmation.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 263–273.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1956). “A New Approach to Semantics.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 21: 1–21, 149–161.Google Scholar

Kemeny, J. G. (1963). “Carnap’s Theory of Probability and Induction.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 711–738.Google Scholar

Kevles, D. J. “‘Into Hostile Political Camps’: The Reorganization of International Science in World War I.” Isis 62 (1): 47–60.Google Scholar

Koellner, P. (2009). “Carnap on the foundations of logic and mathematics.” https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.645.5922.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Th. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Laplace, P.-S. de. (1814/1951). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. New York: Dover.Google Scholar

Lavers, G. (2004). “Carnap, Semantics and Ontology.” Erkenntnis 60: 295–316.Google Scholar

Lavers, G. (2008). “Carnap, Formalism, and Informal Rigour.” Philosophia Mathematica 3 (16): 4–24.Google Scholar

Lavers, G. (2019). “Hitting a Moving Target: Gödel, Carnap, and Mathematics as Logical Syntax.” Philosophia Mathematica 27 (2): 219–243.Google Scholar

Leitgeb, H. (2013). “Scientific Philosophy, Mathematical Philosophy, and All That.” Metaphilosophy 44: 267–275.Google Scholar

Leitgeb, H., and Carus, A. W. (2021). “Rudolf Carnap.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/carnap/.Google Scholar

Lenin, V. I. (1927). Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus. Kritische Bemerkungen über eine reaktionäre Philosophie. Vienna: Verlag für Literatur und Politik.Google Scholar

Leonard, H., and Goodman, N. (1940). “The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 45–55.Google Scholar

Limbeck-Lilienau, C. (2022). “The First Vienna Circle and the Erlangen Conference.” In Uebel, Th. and Limbeck-Lilienau, C. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism. London; New York: Routledge: 99–108.Google Scholar

Löffler, W. (2004). “‘Esperanto. The Feeling of Disgust’: Wittgenstein on Planned Languages.” In Marek, J. C. and Reicher, M. E. (eds.), Papers of the 27th International Wittgenstein Symposium 8–14 August 2004. Erfahrung und Analyse – Experience and Analysis. Kirchberg am Wechsel: ALWS, 209–211.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1983). “Beyond ‘Bad Science’: Skeptical Reflections on the Value-Freedom of Scientific Inquiry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 8 (1): 7–17.Google Scholar

Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Lutz, S. (2012). “On a Straw Man in the Philosophy of Science.” HOPOS 2 (1): 77–120.Google Scholar

Lutz, S. (2014a). “Carnap on Empirical Significance.” Synthese 194 (1): 217–252.Google Scholar

Lutz, S. (2014b). “What’s Right with a Syntactic Approach to Theories and Models?” Erkenntnis 79: 1475–1492.Google Scholar

Lutz, S. (2017). “Carnap on Empirical Significance.” Synthese 194 (1): 217–252.Google Scholar

MacBride, F. (2021). “Rudolf Carnap and David Lewis on Metaphysics.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 9 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar

MacLane, S. (1938). “Carnap on Logical Syntax.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 44: 171–176.Google Scholar

Majer, U. (2002). “Hilbert’s Program to Axiomatize Physics and Its Impact on Schlick, Carnap and Other Members of the Vienna Circle.” In Heidelberger, M. and Stadler, F. (eds.), History of Philosophy Science: New Trends and Perspectives. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 9. Dordrect: Springer, 213–224.Google Scholar

Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marschall, B. (2022). “Carnap’s Philosophy of Mathematics.” Philosophy Compass. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12884.Google Scholar

Matherne, S. (2021). Cassirer. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Maxwell, G., and Feigl, H. (1961). “Why Ordinary Language Needs Reforming.” The Journal of Philosophy 58 (18): 488–498.Google Scholar

McElvenny, J. (2013). “International Language and the Everyday: contact and collaboration between C.K. Ogden, Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (6): 1194–1218.Google Scholar

McElvenny, J. (2018). Language and Meaning in the Age of Modernism: C. K. Ogden and His Contemporaries. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

McGill, V. J. (1936). “An Evaluation of Logical Positivism.” Science & Society 1 (1): 45–80.Google Scholar

McLeod, S. (2019). Modality and Anti-metaphysics. New York; London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Menger, K. (1928). Dimensionstheorie. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Menger, K. (1934/1974). Morality, Decisions, and Social Organization: Towards a Logic of Ethics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Menger, K. (1994). Reminiscences of the Vienna Circle and the Mathematical Colloquium. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Mormann, Th. (2007). “Geometrical Leitmotifs in Carnap’s Early Philosophy.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–64.Google Scholar

Morris, S. (2018). “Carnap and Quine: Analyticity, Naturalism, and the Elimination of Metaphysics.” The Monist 10: 394–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muller, J. Z. (1987). The Other God That Failed. Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Neurath, O. (1936/1983). “Encyclopedia as ‘Model.’” In Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M. (eds.), Otto Neurath: Philosophical Papers 1913–1946. Dordrecht: Reidel, 145–458.Google Scholar

Nittle, N. (2019). “Operation Bootstrap: Empowering the African American Community through Entrepreneurship.” KCET. November 19. www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/operation-bootstrap-empowering-the-african-american-community-through-entrepreneurship.Google Scholar

Nyíri, J. C. (1992). Tradition and Individuality: Essays. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

O’Connor, C. (2019). The Origins of Unfairness: Social Categories and Cultural Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ogden, C. K. (1936/1994). “Basic English and Grammatical Reform.” In Gordon, T. W. (ed.), From Bentham to Basic English. London: Routledge, 187–226.Google Scholar

Ouelbani, M. (2005). “Carnap und die Einheit der Wissenschaft.” In Nemeth, E. and Roudet, N. (eds.), Paris–Wien: Enzyklopädien im Vergleich. Dordrecht: Springer, 205–219.Google Scholar

Overbye, D. (2021). “A Tiny Particle’s Wobble Could Upend the Known Laws of Physics.” New York Times, April 7.Google Scholar

Patton, L. (2023). “Whose Dogmas of Empiricism?” In Morris, S. (ed.), The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–131.Google Scholar

PBS SoCal. (n.d.). “Lost LA: Operation Bootstrap.” PBS SoCal. Accessed October 26, 2021. www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-l-a/clip/operation-bootstrap.Google Scholar

Pincock, Ch. (2005). “A Reserved Reading of Carnap’s Aufbau.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86: 518–543.Google Scholar

Pombo, O. (2011). “Neurath and the Encyclopaedic Project of Unity of Science.” In Symons, J., Pombo, O., and Torres, J. M. (eds.), Otto Neurath and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, 59–70.Google Scholar

Potochnik, A., and Yap, A. (2006). “Revisiting Galison’s ‘Aufbau/Bauhaus’ in Light of Neurath’s Philosophical Projects.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 469–488.Google Scholar

Price, H. (2007). “Quining Naturalism” Journal of Philosophy 104: 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Price, H. (2009). “Metaphysics after Carnap: The Ghost Who Walks?” In Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 320–346.Google Scholar

Price, H. (2013). Expressivism, Pragmatism, and Representationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Putnam, H. (1962). “The Analytic and the Synthetic.” In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 358–397.Google Scholar

Queloz, M. (2021). The Practical Origins of Ideas: Genealogy as Conceptual Reverse-Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1948). “On What There Is.” Review of Metaphysics 2: 21–38.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1951a). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60 (1): 20–43.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1951b). “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 2: 65–72.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1953/1976). “Mr. Strawson on Logical Theory.” In The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 137–157.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1958). “Speaking of Objects.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1–25.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1963). “Carnap and Logical Truth.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 385–406.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1969a). “Ontological Relativity.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 26–68.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1969b). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 69–90.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1974). The Roots of Reference. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1978/1981). “On the Nature of Moral Values.” In Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 55–66.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1986). “Reply to Morton White.” In Hahn, E. and Schilpp, P. A. (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 663–665.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1987). Quiddities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1991/2008). “Two Dogmas in Retrospect.” In Føllesdal, D. and Quine, D. B. (eds.), Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 390–400.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (2001/2008). “Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist.” In Føllesdal, D. and Quine, D. B. (eds.), Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 498–506.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (2004). Quintessence: Basic Readings from the Philosophy of W. V. Quine. Edited by Gibson, R.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Ramsey, F. P. (1931). “Truth and Probability.” In Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.), The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 156–198.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H. (2004). “From Frege and Russell to Carnap: Logic and Logicism in the 1920s.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 151–180.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H. (2005). “Frege’s Natural Numbers: Motivations and Modifications.” In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. (eds.), Gottlob Frege, Critical Assessments, vol. III. London: Routledge, 270–301.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H. (2007a). “Frege-Russell Numbers: Analysis or Explication?” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Analytic Turn. London: Routledge: 33–50.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H. (2007b). “Carnap and Modern Logic.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 176–199.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H. (2012). “Carnapian Explication: A Case Study and Critique.” In Wagner, P. (ed.), Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 96–116.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H. (2013). “Hempel, Carnap, and the Covering Law Model.” In Milkov, N. and Peckhaus, V. (eds.), The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism. Berlin: Springer, 311–324.Google Scholar

Reck, E. H., and Schiemer, G. (eds.), (2020). The Prehistory of Mathematical Structuralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. (1930/1978). “The Philosophical Significance of Modern Physics.” In Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), Hans Reichenbach: Selected Writings, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 304–323.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. (1954). Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. (1954/1976). Laws, Modalities, and Counterfactuals. Reprinting of Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations with Foreword by W. C. Salmon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. (1959). “Free Will.” In Reichenbach, M. (ed.), Modern Philosophy of Science: Selected Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 151–192.Google Scholar

Reisch, G. (1991). “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?” Philosophy of Science 58: 264–277.Google Scholar

Reisch, G. (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. To the Icy Slopes of Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Reisch, G. (2009). “Three Kinds of Political Engagement for Philosophy of Science.” Science and Education 41: 191–197.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (1998). Carnap’s Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (2003). “The Geometry of Knowledge: Lewis, Becker, Carnap and the Formalization of Philosophy in the 1920s.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 (1): 165–182.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (2007). “Carnapian Pragmatism.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 295–315.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (2010). “Ernst Cassirer and Michael Friedman: Kantian or Hegelian Dynamics of Reason?” In Domski, M. and Dickson, M. (eds.), Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. LaSalle IL: Open Court, 279–294.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (2013). “Taking the Measure of Carnap’s Philosophical Engineering: Metalogic as Metrology.” In Reck, E. (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. London: Palgrave, 60–77.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (2017). “‘Neither a Confession Nor an Accusation’: Michael Polanyi, Hans Reichenbach, and Philosophical Modernity after World War One.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 47 (3): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richardson, A. W. (2021). “On the Empirical Refutation of Epistemological Doctrine in Hans Reichenbach’s Early Philosophy.” In Lutz, S. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), Logical Empiricism and the Physical Sciences: From Philosophy of Nature to Philosophy of Physics. New York: Routledge, 157–178.Google Scholar

Richardson, S. (2009a). “The Left Vienna Circle, Part 1.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40: 14–24.Google Scholar

Richardson, S. (2009b). “The Left Vienna Circle, Part 2. The Left Vienna Circle, Disciplinary History, and Feminist Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2): 167–174.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Th. (1996). “Carnap: From Logical Syntax to Semantics.” In Giere, R. N. and Richardson, A. W. (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 213–250.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Th. (2003). “Languages and Calculi.” In Hardcastle, G. L. and Richardson, A. W. (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 257–280.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Th. (2004). “Frege, Carnap, and Quine: Continuities and Discontinuities.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 181–202.Google Scholar

Ricketts, Th. (2007). “Tolerance and Logicism: Logical Syntax and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200–225.Google Scholar

Romizi, D. (2012). “The Vienna Circle’s ‘Scientific World-Conception’: Philosophy of Science in a Political Arena.” HOPOS 2: 205–242.Google Scholar

Rosen, G. (2010). “Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.” In Hale, B. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–136.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1903). Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1924/1958). “Logical Atomism.” In Pears, D. (ed.), The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 157–181.Google Scholar

Russell, B., and Whitehead, N. A. (1910–1913). Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schiemer, G. (2012). “Carnap’s Untersuchungen: Logicism, Formal Axiomatics, and Metatheory.” In Creath, R. (ed.), Rudolf Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Vienna: Springer, 13–36.Google Scholar

Schiemer, G. (2013). “Carnap’s Early Semantics.” Erkenntnis 78 (3): 487–522.Google Scholar

Schiemer, G., and Reck, E. (2013). “Logic in the 1930s: Type Theory and Model Theory.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 19: 433–472.Google Scholar

Schiemer, G., Zach, R., and Reck, E. (2017). “Carnap’s Early Metatheory: Scope and Limits.” Erkenntnis 194 (1): 33–65.Google Scholar

Schilpp, P. A. (ed.) (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Schlick, M. (1925/1974). General Theory of Knowledge. 2nd ed. Translated by A. E. Blumberg. New York: Vienna: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Schlick, M. (1930/1939). Problems of Ethics. Translated by David Rynin. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Schlimm, D. (2013). “Axioms in Mathematical Practice.” Philosophia Mathematica 21 (1): 37–92.Google Scholar

Schroeder-Gudehus, B. (1973). “Challenge to Transnational Loyalties: International Scientific Organizations after the First World War.” Science Studies 3 (2): 93–118.Google Scholar

Schwartzkopff, R. (2011). “Numbers as Ontologically Dependent Objects: Hume’s Principle Revisited.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 82 (1): 353–373.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sher, G. (2008). “Tarski’s Thesis.” In Patterson, D. E. (ed.), Alfred Tarski: Philosophical Background, Development, and Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300–339.Google Scholar

Shieh, S. (2017). “Pragmatism, Apriority, and Modality: C. I. Lewis against Russell’s Material Implication.” In Olen, P. and Sachs, C. (eds.), Pragmatism in Transition: Contemporary Perspectives on C. I. Lewis. London; New York: Palgrave, 103–145.Google Scholar

Shimony, A. (1955). “Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 1–28.Google Scholar

Siegetsleitner, A. (2014). Ethik und Moral im Wiener Kreis. Zur Geschichte eines engagierten Humanismus. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar

Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Skyrms, B. (1990). The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Skyrms, B. (1995). “Strict Coherence, Sigma Coherence and the Metaphysics of Quantity.” Philosophical Studies 77: 39–55.Google Scholar

Stadler, F. (1997). Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Stegmüller, W. (1979). The Structuralist View of Theories. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Stein, H. (1992). “Was Carnap Entirely Wrong, After All?” Synthese 93: 275–295.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1954/1974). “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations.” In Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. London: Methuen, 133–168.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1963). “Carnap’s Views on Constructed Systems versus Natural Languages in Analytic Philosophy.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 503–518.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. (1986). “Reference and Its roots.” In Hahn, L. and Schilpp, P. A. (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. 2nd ed. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 519–532.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F., and Grice, H. P. (1956). “In Defense of a Dogma.” Philosophical Review 65: 141–158.Google Scholar

Stump, D. (2009). “Pragmatism, Activism, and the Icy Slopes of Logic in George Reisch’s Portrait of Philosophy as a Young Field.” Science and Education 18: 169–175.Google Scholar

Suppe, F. (ed.) (1974). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Suppes, P. (1992). “Axiomatic Methods in Science.” In Carvallo, M. (ed.), Nature, Cognition and System II. Heidelberg: Springer, 205–232.Google Scholar

Sznajder, M. (2018). “Inductive Logic as Explication: The Evolution of Carnap’s Notion of Logical Probability.” The Monist 101 (4): 417–440.Google Scholar

Sznajder, M. (2022). “Janina Hosiasson‐Lindenbaum on Analogical Reasoning: New Sources.” Erkenntnis. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-022-00586-y.Google Scholar

Táíwò, O. O. (2021). “Joining Team Positivism.” The Sooty Empiric (blog). February 1. http://sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2021/02/joining-team-positivism-by-olufemi-o.html.Google Scholar

Tarski, A. (1936/1956). “The Establishment of Scientific Semantics.” In Woodger, J. (ed.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 401–408.Google Scholar

Tarski, A. (1936/2002). “On the Concept of Following Logically.” History and Philosophy of Logic 23: 155–196.Google Scholar

Tarski, A. (1954–1955). “Contributions to the Theory of Models.” Indagationes mathematicae 16: 572–588; 17: 56–64.Google Scholar

Tarski, A. (1933/1956). “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages.” In Woodger, J. (ed.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 152–278.Google Scholar

Tauli, V. (1974). “The Theory of Language Planning.” In Fishman, J. A., Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 49–67.Google Scholar

Thomasson, A. L. (2015). Ontology Made Easy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Tomalin, M. (2009). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tuboly, A. T. (2017). “From ‘Syntax’ to ‘Semantik’ – Carnap’s Inferentialism and its Prospects.” Polish Journal of Philosophy 11 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar

Tuboly, A. T. (2022). “The Constitution of geistige Gegenstände in Carnap’s Aufbau and the Importance of Hans Freyer.” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 181–204.Google Scholar

Tuomela, R. (1973). Theoretical Concepts. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2005). “Political Philosophy of Science in Logical Empiricism: The Left Vienna Circle.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (4): 754–773.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2009). “Carnap’s Logical Syntax in the Context of the Vienna Circle.” In Wagner, P., (ed.), Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 53–78.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2010). “What’s Right about Carnap, Neurath and the Left Vienna Circle Thesis: A Refutation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (2): 214–221.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2012a). “Carnap, Philosophy and ‘Politics in the Broadest Sense.’” In Creath, R. (ed.), Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Vienna: Springer, 133–148.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2012b). “On the Production History and Early Reception of The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle.” In Carnap, R., Hahn, H., and Neurath, O. (1929/2012). Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis. Edited by Stadler, F. and Uebel, Th.. Vienna; New York: Springer, 291–314.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2013a). “Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the Bipartite Metatheory Conception.” Erkenntnis 78: 523–546.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2013b). “Neurath’s Unity of Science and the Encyclopedia Project.” In Kaldis, B (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, vol 2. London: Sage: 659–662.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2015). “Three Challenges to the Complementarity of the Logic and the Pragmatics of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53: 23–32.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2020). “Intersubjective Accountability: Politics and Philosophy in the Left Vienna Circle.” Perspectives on Science 28 (1): 35–62.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2021). “Was bedeutet Carnaps ‘Reinigung’ der Erkenntnistheorie?” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 127–147.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (2022). “The Bipartite Metatheory Conception of Philosophy.” In Uebel, Th. and Limbeck-Lilienau, C., (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism, Abingdon: Routledge, 361–370.Google Scholar

Uebel, Th. (ms.) “Carnap and the Indeterminacy of Translation.” Talk given at the Conference “60 Years of Quine’s Word and Object” at the University of Campinas, Brazil in August 2021. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar

UN News. (2021). “IPCC Report: ‘Code Red’ for Human Driven Global Heating, Warns UN Chief.” UN News. August 9. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, S. (2018). Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine’s Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Verhaegh, S. (2020). “Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part I: Rudolf Carnap.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8 (11): 1–23.Google Scholar

Vlastos, G. (1975). Plato’s Universe. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (ed.) (2009). Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (ed.) (2012). Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Wagner, P. (2017). “Carnapian and Tarskian Semantics.” Synthese 194: 97–119.Google Scholar

Wartofsky, M. (1982). “The Vienna Circle as a Social Movement.” Grazer Philosophische Studien, 16–17 (1): 79–101.Google Scholar

Weber, M. (1919). Wissenschaft als Beruf. Munich: Duncker und Humblot.Google Scholar

Weiner, J. (2021). Taking Frege at His Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Weir, A. (2014). “Quine’s Naturalism.” In Harman, G. and Lepore, E. (eds.) A Companion to W. V. O. Quine. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 114–147.Google Scholar

Werner, M. (2003). Moderne in der Provinz. Kulturelle Experimente im Fin de Siècle Jena. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar

White, M. J. (1985). Agency and Integrality: Philosophical Themes in the Ancient Discussions of Determinism and Responsibility. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Wieman, H. N. (1937). “Review of ‘Factors Determining Human Behavior by Harvard Tercentenary Publications.’” The Journal of Religion 17 (3): 321–324.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. (2013). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wilson, M. (2022). Imitation of Rigor. An Alternative History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by C. K. Ogden. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Wolters, G. (2004). “Styles in Philosophy: The Case of Carnap.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. Lasalle, IL: Open Court, 25–39.Google Scholar

Yablo, S. (1998). “Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?” Australian Society Supplementary 72 (1): 229–283.Google Scholar

Yap, A. (2010). “Feminism and Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance.” Hypatia 25: 437–454.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (1982). “W. E. Johnson’s Sufficientness Postulate.” The Annals of Statistics 10 (4): 1091–1099.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (1991). “Ramsey, Truth, and Probability.” Theoria 57 (3): 211–238.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (1997a). “The Continuum of Inductive Methods Revisited.” In Earman, J. and Norton, J. D. (eds.), The Cosmos of Science: Essays of Exploration. Pittsburgh; Konstanz: University of Pittsburgh Press; Universitäts Verlag-Konstanz, 351–385.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (1997b). “Confirming Universal Generalizations.” Erkenntnis 45: 267–283.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (2007). “Carnap on Probability and Induction.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273–294.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (2008). “Philosophy of Inductive Logic: The Bayesian Perspective.” In Haaparanta, L. (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 725–774.Google Scholar

Zabell, S. L. (2011). “Carnap and the Logic of Inductive Inference.” In Gabbay, D., Hartmann, S., and Woods, J. (eds.), Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Logic, Volume 10: Inductive Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 265–309.Google Scholar