Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:27:16.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feigl's ‘Scientific Realism’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Matthias Neuber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article considers the evolution of Feigl's attempt at establishing a stable form of scientific realism. I will argue that Feigl's work in that area should be appreciated for two reasons: (1) it represents a telling case against the view of there being an unbridgeable ‘analytic-continental divide’ in the context of twentieth-century philosophy; (2) it contradicts the idea that scientific realism is at odds with logical empiricism. It will be shown that Feigl developed his scientific realist position from within the logical empiricists’ Vienna Circle. This, in turn, necessitates a fresh approach toward the contemporary scientific realism debate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 165 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I wish to thank Brian Bodensteiner and an anonymous reviewer of this journal for very helpful suggestions and comments.

References

Carnap, Rudolf. 1928. Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Weltkreis.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1932. “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache.” Erkenntnis 2:219–41.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1936. “Wahrheit und Bewährung.” In Actes du congres internationale de philosophie scientifique, 18–23. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1936–37. “Testability and Meaning.” Pts. 1 and 2. Philosophy of Science 3:419–71; 4:1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1945. “The Two Concepts of Probability.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5:513–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1950/1956. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” In Meaning and Necessity, 205–21. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1963. “My View on Ontological Problems and Existence.” In The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, ed. Schilpp, P. A., 868–73. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. 1922–29. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. 3 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffa, Alberto. 1991. The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap: To the Vienna Station, ed. Wessels, L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 1984. Realism and Truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1993. Origins of Analytical Philosophy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Ellis, Brian. 1979. Rational Belief Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Esfeld, Michael. 2009. “Hypothetical Metaphysics of Nature.” In The Significance of the Hypothetical in the Natural Sciences, ed. Heidelberger, Michael and Schiemann, Gregor, 341–64. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1927/1994. Zufall und Gesetz, ed. Haller, Rudolf and Binder, Thomas. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1936. “Sense and Nonsense in Scientific Realism.” In Actes du Congrès international de philosophie scientifique, Vol. 3, Langage et pseudo-Problèmes, 50–56. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1943/1949. “Logical Empiricism.” In Twentieth Century Philosophy, ed. Runnes, D. D., 371–416. New York: Philosophical Library. Repr. with omissions in Readings in Philosophical Analysis, ed. Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars, 3–26. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1950a. “Existential Hypotheses: Realistic versus Phenomenalistic Interpretations.” Philosophy of Science 17:35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1950b. “Logical Reconstruction, Realism and Pure Semiotic.” Philosophy of Science 17:186–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1954/1981. “Scientific Method without Metaphysical Presuppositions.” In Inquiries and Provocations: Selected Writings, 1929–1974, ed. Cohen, Robert S., 95–106. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1956. “Some Major Issues and Developments in the Philosophy of Science of Logical Empiricism” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, ed. Feigl, Herbert and Scriven, Michael, 3–37. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1963/1981. “The Power of Positivistic Thinking: An Essay on the Quandaries of Transcendence.” In Inquiries and Provocations: Selected Writings, 1929–1974, ed. Cohen, Robert S., 38–56. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert. 1974/1981. “No Pot of Message.” In Inquiries and Provocations: Selected Writings, 1929–1974, ed. Cohen, Robert S., 1–20. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Feigl, Herbert, and Blumberg, Albert E.. 1931. “Logical Positivism: A New Movement in European Philosophy.” Journal of Philosophy 28:281–96.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp. 1950. “Comments on Realistic versus Phenomenalistic Interpretations.” Philosophy of Science 17:166–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1987. “Carnap's Aufbau Reconsidered.” Noûs 21:521–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992. “Epistemology in the Aufbau.” Synthese 93:15–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1997. “Helmholtz's Zeichentheorie and Schlick's Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre: Early Logical Empiricism and Its Nineteenth Century Background.” Philosophical Topics 25:19–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2000. A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gower, Barry. 2000. “Cassirer, Schlick and ‘Structural’ Realism: The Philosophy of the Exact Sciences in the Background to Early Logical Empiricism.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 8:71–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 2006. “Kantianism and Realism: Alois Riehl and Moritz Schlick.” In The Kantian Legacy in Nineteenth-Century Science, ed. Friedman, Michael and Nordmann, Alfred, 227–47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 2007. “From Neo-Kantianism to Critical Realism: Space and the Mind-Body Problem in Riehl and Schlick.” Perspectives on Science 15:26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl Gustav. 1950. “A Note on Semantic Realism.” Philosophy of Science 17:169–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, Clifford. 1974. “Systematic Realism.” Synthese 26:409–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaila, Eino. 1936. Über das System der Wirklichkeitsbegriffe: Ein Beitrag zum logischen Empirismus. Helsinki: Societas Philosophica.Google Scholar
Kaila, Eino. 1942. Über den physikalischen Realitätsbegriff: Zweiter Beitrag zum logischen Empirismus. Helsinki: Societas Philosophica.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James, and Ross, Don. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalised. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett, ed. 1984. Scientific Realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Grover. 1962. “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities.” In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3, Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, ed. Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover, 3–27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mormann, Thomas. 1999. “Idealistische Häresien in der Wissenschaftsphilosophie: Cassirer, Carnap und Kuhn.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30:233–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1950. “Science and Semantic Realism.” Philosophy of Science 17:174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1932. “Protokollsätze.” Erkenntnis 3:204–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1935. “Pseudorationalismus der Falsifikation.” Erkenntnis 5:353–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, David. 1979. Theory and Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Ralph Barton. 1910. “The Egocentric Predicament.” Journal for Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 7:5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Mathematics, Matter and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1978. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1994. Words and Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, Quine Willard van. 1951/1980. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View, 20–46. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1938. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. 1990. “How Not to Russell Carnap's Aufbau.” In PSA 1990: Proceedings of the 1990 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L., 3–14. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. 1992. “Logical Idealism and Carnap's Construction of the World.” Synthese 93:59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Alan. 1998. Carnap's Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan. 2007. “Carnapian pragmatism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, ed. Friedman, Michael and Creath, Richard, 295–315. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riehl, Alois. 1879–87. Der philosophische Kritizismus und seine Bedeutung für die positive Wissenschaft. Geschichte und System. 3 Vols. Leipzig: Kröner.Google Scholar
Riehl, Alois. 1903. Zur Einführung in die Philosophie der Gegenwart: Acht Vorträge. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1914. Our Knowledge of the External World. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ryckman, Thomas. 1991. “Conditio Sine Qua Non: Zuordnung in the Early Epistemologies of Cassirer and Schlick.” Synthese 88:57–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1913. “Gibt es intuitive Erkenntnis?” Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie 37:472–88.Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1915. “Die philosophische Bedeutung des Relativitätsprinzips.” Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 159:129–75.Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1918/1974. General Theory of Knowledge, trans. Blumberg, Albert E.. Repr. New York: Springer. Originally published as Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1919. “Erscheinung und Wesen.” Kant-Studien 23:188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1930/1979. “The Turning-Point in Philosophy.” In Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, 1925–1936, ed. Moritz Schlick, 154–60. Repr. Dordrecht: Reidel. Originally published as “Die Wende der Philosophy.” Erkenntnis 1:4–11.Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1932/1979. “Positivism and Realism.” In Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2, 1925–1936, ed. Moritz Schlick, 154–60. Repr. Dordrecht: Reidel. Originally published as “Postivismus und Realismus.” Erkenntnis 3:1–31.Google Scholar
Sellars, Roy W. 1916. Critical Realism. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar
Sellars, Roy W.. 1932. The Philosophy of Physical Realism. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1947a. “Epistemology and the New Way of Words.” Journal of Philosophy 44:645–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1947b. “Pure Pragmatics and Epistemology.” Philosophy of Science 14:181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1948/1949. “Realism and the New Way of Words.” In Readings in Philosophical Analysis, ed. Feigl, Herbert and Sellars, Wilfrid, 424–56. Repr. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Originally published in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8:601–34.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley. 1982. “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy.” Philosophy of Science 49:485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, Friedrich. 1997. Studien zum Wiener Kreis: Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Uebel, Thomas. 2007. Empiricism at the Crossroads: The Vienna Circle's Protocol-Sentence Debate. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worrall, John. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43:99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahar, Elie. 2007. Why Science Needs Metaphysics: A Plea for Structural Realism. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Dean. 2004. “Prologue: Metaphysics after the Twentieth Century.” Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 1:9–22.Google Scholar