This paper approaches a theory relating authorship, meaning and purpose by semiformalized developments of two “presupposed theories”: of purposeful behavior and of sign-reading.

The theory of purposeful behavior is made to rest upon two undefined predicates. 'Wt(a,p,q)' abbreviates the claim that at time t, person a works at bringing it about that p in order to bring it about that q. 'Bt(a,p)' abbreviates the claim that at time t, person a brings it about that p. A number of definitions and laws are based upon these two predicates. One practical utility of the symbolism is a constraint to symbolize differently a purpose, according as what is intended is a purposing or a thing purposed.

The theory of sign-reading undertakes to assimilate sign-reading to inference. The theory proposes ‘Rt(a,p,q)‘ as a basic undefined predicate, abbreviating the claim that at time t, person a reads that p as a sign that q.

The theory of deliberate sign-production, and more particularly of authorship, is approached by permitting the two above sets of symbols to supply arguments one for the other. Specifically, making a deliberate or a candid sign is defined as bringing about a state of affairs in order that an addressee will read the bringing about by the sign-maker of that state of affairs as a sign that such and so.

The laws of the two first parts of the paper are then appealed to in order to show that when the sign-making is candid (defined in the paper), the such and so mentioned above must be a feigned or actual purpose of the author. The paper concludes with a brief consideration of what in this total signified purpose of the sign-making might be indentified by reference to the conventional sign-type (sentence) presented. Thus “meaning” of a sentence is thence viewed as an abstraction from the signified meaning (always a purpose) of the uttering.

Recent impasses reached by nuclear theory, a recurrent desire to interpret quantum phenomena in mechanistic terms and a certain loss of glory suffered by the general theory of relativity make it appear timely, perhaps, to review discarded attempts at common-sense explanations of atomic and relativistic physics, making sure that they have not been too hastily rejected. Mr. Hartley has been a persistent and circumspect advocate of a mechanical view which, even if it cannot claim to solve all problems in the universal flash of brilliance for which physicists and philosophers have waited in vain for decades, raises worthwhile points for consideration. The nature of this task and the preoccupation of technical journals with imminent matters singles out our journal as the proper carrier for Mr. Hartley's thoughts. They are here presented without mathematical detail but in a manner suggestive of the unity of his treatment. Technical details are discussed in some of the items of the bibliography.

Prompted by Alfred Landé's appraisal of individual indeterminacy in both ordinary and quantum games of chance [Mind, n.s. 67: 174-181 (April, 1958)], this paper suggests an alternative assessment in terms of the model-structure of physical theory. Whereas Landé explains such indeterminacy by appeal to “the Leibnitzian principle” of causal continuity, the author sees no need for such a special explanation. Instead, he indicates how the partial interpretation of the kinetic and quantum models limits us to statistical generalities—to limited “areas of relative chance.” The alleged indeterminism of physics thus resides in the model and its partial interpretation in the sense that the statistical nature of statements about “the next throw” or about individual particles is built into the model that enables the scientist to talk at all about such outcomes or entities.

Within the past decade there has grown an acute and highly articulate group of critics of the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory,—the so-called “Copenhagen Interpretation.” The writings of people like Bopp, Janossy, and particularly Bohm and Feyerabend, must be taken very seriously indeed. The future of some important discussions in the philosophy and the logic of science rests with these individuals. But they have, in their own writings, occasionally matched the inelegancies of Bohr and Heisenberg with as many inelegancies of their own. The present paper is meant to present a quintet of considerations which may possibly lead to a reassessment of the issues between Bohr, Heisenberg, and their critics, especially Bohm and Feyerabend.

There is a biological controversy of long standing between proponents of the Wilsonian view that all organisms of a certain class have at least one part that is a cell and proponents of the contradictory, or Dobellian, view that some organisms in the same class have no parts that are cells. The controversy is considered from the standpoint of the methodology of explication. It is concluded that on the grounds of prevalent biological usage, precision, utility and generality the Wilsonian view may be defended successfully against attacks that have been made upon it.

The lessons of “logical empiricism” still need learning by scientific philosophers who continue to give ultimate descriptions of ultimate things. Even attempts to assign some basic transformative role to language must fail, as this role can always be reversed on some higher language level. Final philosophical characterizations of the universe collapse when we see their arbitrary linguistic nature. Similarly, the effort to force scientific philosophy into an ontology, as shown by a recent example, turns out to be only a conventional way of talking, rather than a legitimate appeal to something in the universe. More vulnerable recent examples of scientific metaphysical descriptions of “reality” reveal a deceptive linguistic superfluity in no way necessary for science or scientific philosophy. Within the inevitable circularity of language, semantic analysis can still fasten to the goal of predictability; and predictability can do without uneconomical symbolism.

Professor S. F. Barker has recently argued that the theory of the status of theoretical concepts in natural science put forward by Hempel and Braithwaite is mistaken. Essentially this “formalistic” theory says that these concepts “take on” meaning from their place in a total theoretical system which as a whole implies testable observation statements. In the paper it is argued that Barker's criticism of the Hempel-Braithwaite theory is mistaken because (a) he does not sufficiently consider the operative empirical restrictions on concept formation in scientific theorizing, and (b) his criticisms are based on an acceptance of a narrow empiricism which would reject most existing theoretical natural science as empirically meaningless.

The passage criticized by Mr. Linhart as “misleading” may be clarified as follows. Linhart is quite right that a method of interval estimation including a formula equivalent to my VI may be based on inverse probability, and that probability values considerably greater than zero may be thus obtained. The method of inverse probability to which I refer in the criticized passage, however, is that of Carnap, according to which (as indicated in the preceding paragraph of my paper, and on p. 16) the inverse probability of a law on the basis of finite evidence is zero. My statement that “... our method of interval estimation is superior to that of inverse probability, in that the probability values yielded by the former are considerably greater than those given by the latter...” remains true, since it is Carnap's method, which is not an interval method, of which I am speaking.

The author discusses Professor Darlington's recent paper “On the Confirmation of Laws.” He criticizes Professor Darlington for not writing out in full the evidence sentence in formula III of his paper, and expresses doubts as to whether Professor Darlington's solution to the problem of the confirmation of laws follows from the complete version of that formula.