When phenomenological descriptions of perceptual experience are given it often seems that the distinction between mode and content of perceptual experience is not given the attention it deserves and that consequently certain philosophical difficulties develop which might have been avoided. While it will no doubt be admitted that the distinction between the “how” and the “what” of appearing is of importance in the phenomenology of perception, at first sight the making of such a distinction may seem so simple as to be hardly worth discussing. It may seem to involve a mere matter of distinguishing modifiers of the verb “to perceive” from this verb's direct objects and their modifiers, but further consideration shows the situation is not that simple. In some cases there are alternative ways of phenomenological description such that what one description seems to indicate to be content is what the other description seems to indicate to be mode, and yet the two descriptions are seen to be equivalent in intent. If we analyze one expression in accordance with its grammar then the alternative expression must be considered idiomatic, that is, not analyzable in accordance with its grammar, for otherwise the two expressions could not be considered compatible.

Of the many cosmological models developed during the past forty years, none is completely satisfactory; so work continues in the development of new models and in the checking of their predictions against the growing mass of experimental evidence. The validity of a model rests on its agreement with experimental data, particularly the data on distribution of galaxies and on redshifts.

Theory and Practice; Precision and Vagueness. There has long been a conflict between the theory and the practice of scientific naming. The theory expressed both by working scientists and by philosophers has almost always been that precision is an essential part of the scientific attitude and of the procedures and results of science. Theoretically, metaphors have been scorned as belonging to poetry or to philosophy rather than to science. In scientific practice, however, vagueness and metaphor are constantly present; and they are particularly evident at the advancing frontiers of any science, whether mathematical, natural, or social.

Die neuere Naturwissenschaft trat im 17. Jahrhundert zuerst als “Physik” auf. Man soll sich an die Gründung der modernen Dynamik von Galileo und Newton erinnern.

Die methodisch-allgemeine Grundlegung dieser neuen Wissenschaft wird in der Cartesischen Philosophie am klarsten ausgedrückt.

This is a study of the logic of the concept of evidence. Two distinct concepts of evidence will be explicated and analyzed: confirming evidence by means of which an hypothesis is established, and supporting evidence which does not establish the hypothesis, but merely renders it more tenable. The formal characteristics of each of these concepts of evidence will be examined in detail in Part II. (Part I deals with the auxiliary notion of evidential presumption.) In Part III these considerations are used as a basis for a survey of rules of evidence in order to establish the systematic character of the evidential relationship from the standpoint of formal logic. Finally, the Conclusion appends a brief indication of the methodological bearing of the logical theory of evidence.

These considerations on Carl G. Hempel's and Paul Oppenheim's lucid article “Studies in the Logic of Explanation'”—LE for short—are an attempt to exploit some of the considerable advances made there. I wish to show how these advances may be incorporated into a technique for the investigation of problems of the philosophy of science, which has been called discourse-analytic. This discipline consists essentially in a technique of examining actual texts provided by specialists, such as physicists, psychologists, historians, etc., the task being to discover fundamental logical and semantical features in the discourses under investigation. I am preparing a book on historical explanation, which will contain such case studies of historical texts.

(1) the author has outlined several of the more important interpretations of measurement in quantum mechanics and discussed the problems arising from them. Particular attention was paid to the work of Bohr, Heisenberg and von Neumann and a tentative proposal was made for a possible interpretation which would mitigate some of the problems and dilemmas. This interpretation was essentially that proposed by Margenau (2) in terms of latent variables. He defines measurement to be any operation with physical apparatus which results in a number, including in this, of course, yes and no answers as well as conventional numerical answers. Further he makes the distinction between the preparation of a state and the measurement of the state (3). A preparation puts the quantum system into a particular state whereas the measurement frequently destroys the state in question. This paper presents several criteria to help in the evaluation of the alternatives presented in the first paper and carries further the suggested interpretation mentioned at the end of that paper.