Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:33:00.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

George A. Reisch
George A. Reisch*
Affiliation:
Committee on the Conceptual Foundations of Science, University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the light of two unpublished letters from Carnap to Kuhn, this essay examines the relationship between Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Carnap's philosophical views. Contrary to the common wisdom that Kuhn's book refuted logical empiricism, it argues that Carnap's views of revolutionary scientific change are rather similar to those detailed by Kuhn. This serves both to explain Carnap's appreciation of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and to suggest that logical empiricism, insofar as that program rested on Carnap's shoulders, was not substantially upstaged by Kuhn's book.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 264 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

†

Helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper were given by Douglas Allchin, Jeff Ramsey, Robert Richards, Howard Stein, and an anonymous reviewer.

References

Aspect, A.; Grangier, P.; and Roger, G. (1981), “Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem”, Physical Review Letters 47: 460–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspect, A.; Grangier, P.; and Roger, G. (1982), “Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities”, Physical Review Letters 49: 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspect, A.; Dalibard, J.; and Roger, G. (1982), “Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers”, Physical Review Letters 49: 1804–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”, Physical Review 48: 696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936–37), “Testability and Meaning”, Philosophy of Science 3: 419–471; 4: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. ([1934] 1937), The Logical Syntax of Language. Translated by A. Smeaton, Countess von Zeppelin. Originally published as Logische Syntax der Sprache, Schriften zur Wissenschaftlichen Weltauffssung, vol. 8. (Vienna: Verlag von Julius Springer). London: Kegan Paul Trench, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956a), “Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology”, in R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. 2d. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 205–221.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956b), “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts”, in H. Fiegl and M. Scriven (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 1, The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 38–76.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (12 April 1960), letter to Thomas Kuhn, University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections, “Unity of Science Movement Papers”, Box 1, Folder 4, (University of Pittsburgh, Carnap Collection no. RC 088–47-08).Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (28 April 1962), letter to Thomas Kuhn, University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections, “Unity of Science Movement Papers”, Box 1, Folder 4, (University of Pittsburgh, Carnap Collection no. RC 088–47-01).Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963a), “Intellectual Autobiography”, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Library of Living Philosophers. Vol. 11, The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp. 3–84.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. ([1935] 1963b), “Philosophy and Logical Syntax”. Reprinted and revised in W. Alston and G. Nakhnikian (eds.), Readings in Twentieth-Century Philosophy. New York: The Free Press, pp. 424–460.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963c), “Replies and Systematic Expositions”, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Library of Living Philosophers. Vol. 11, The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, pp. 859–1013.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. ([1928] 1969), The Logical Structure of the World in The Logical Structure of the World; Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. Translated by Rolf George. Originally published as Der Logische Aufbau Der Welt (Berlin-Schlachtensee: Weltkreis-Verlag). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Danto, A. C. (1985), Narration and Knowledge. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. (1935), “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47: 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1984), “Observation Reconsidered”, Philosophy of Science 51: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1988), “A Reply to Churchland's ‘Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality‘”, Philosophy of Science 55: 188–198..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1961), Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science. Reprint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2d. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, O.; Morris, C.; Carnap, R. (eds.) (1955, 1970), Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vols. 1–2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.) (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2d. ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1961), Foresight and Understanding: An Enquiry into the Aims of Science. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar