This paper is the forerunner of an extensive logical analysis of the relativity idea, in which an axiomatic structure based upon the principles of topology is developed. It is meant to expose the manner in which relativity stretches from the pole of pure conception to that of factual observation, from the a priori to the a posteriori. We take pains to show, in connection with special relativity, precisely which elements are postulational and which are verifiable empirically. Our attempt can be somewhat naively characterized as an effort to show how misguided it is to “derive” relativity from such experimental facts as the Michelson-Morley experiment—as so many textbooks profess to do.

Bertrand Russell in “New Hopes for a Changing World” (1) writes the following passage:

As a preliminary to the modern theory of measurement with which this paper is chiefly concerned, it is desirable to review a few of the characteristics and implications of classical physics to illustrate the far reaching changes that have taken place in our conception of nature as the result of the development of quantum mechanics.

In this paper I wish to reformulate in my own way some parts of Whitehead's theory of prehensions. This reformulation will deviate in various respects from Whitehead's own detailed views and terminology, but the main inspiration is from Whitehead (1).

To-day economics is considered the most highly developed discipline among the social sciences. Yet, its explanatory and predictive powers are admitted by all hands to be weak compared to those possessed by the physical sciences. This weakness is still frequently explained by apologetic references to the relatively tender age of economic science. This apparently implies that in the normal course of time economics will grow up and achieve the stature and powers of say, physics. The trouble with this argument is that economics is certainly as old as physics. If it lags behind other disciplines in predictive and explanatory powers, lack of time cannot be the cause.

Any discussion of the relativity of categories necessarily opens up questions of prime interest for the theory of knowledge, and it appears to me that L. von Bertalanffy's paper (Philosophy of Science Oct. 1955) points to certain implications which, though they were incidental to his particular approach to the problem, might repay further elaboration.