In a book and a series of articles (1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1978) Harold I. Brown has presented “the new theory of science”, which he characterizes as a “modest historicism”. I propose to examine Brown's contribution to the current debate on scientific method, and to show the inadequacy of his proposals. In particular, I want to concentrate on a fundamental concern of Brown's, namely, rationality.

In this article, I evaluate Hartmann and Fitelson’s solution to the Bayesian problem of old evidence by applying it to an early stage in the development of quantum theory. I argue that this case study suggests that whether old evidence is anomalous affects its support for a hypothesis. I introduce and defend two formal assumptions to accommodate this idea. This analysis not only explicates an important historical example, but it also shows that the given solution captures the intuitive importance of “surprising” evidence that has previously been problematic in the context of old evidence.

The purpose of this paper is to solve a serious problem for the projection postulate involving the time-energy uncertainty relation. The problem was recently raised by Teller, who believes that the problem is insoluble and, consequently, that the projection postulate should no longer be regarded as a serious focus for interpretive investigation.

A problem of tremendous import confronts the social scientists of our day. Having accumulated a vast amount of detailed data on human relations the social scientists are now being asked about the significance of their data. Two major aspects of this questioning are these: How can we synthesize all available scientific data on human relations so that this knowledge can be successfully applied to the solution of current social problems; and secondly, since some of the data accumulated so far has been defined and organized in terms of concepts imitative of older (Newtonian) physical (and sometimes biological) concepts—the appropriateness of which to human relations as subject matter is questionable—should we not evaluate these basic concepts with a view to laying new conceptual foundations for our knowledge of human relations? Thus we shall open the way for new social research and at the same time develop a methodologically sounder basis for our knowledge of human relations. Briefly, our knowledge of human relations at present is at loose ends, and in this condition is not as applicable to the solution of pressing social problems as it would be if it were unified into a comprehensive and more flexible science of human behavior. Such a unification would demand not only a synthesis of the data of the social sciences but also the critical evaluation of many of the basic concepts of these sciences.

This paper takes the first steps in the construction of a theory of event identity as that theory applies to historical sentences. The theory is extensional throughout. Following statements of criteria of adequacy for the construction, Davidson's method of regimenting sentences is adopted in order to allow for variables ranging over events. Events in this theory are only partially construed, that is, to the extent of treating them as concrete individuals rather than as classes or repeatable universals. The paper concludes with a statement of several theorems and definitions and an example of how the theory works.

Jarrett Leplin has recently criticized a number of aspects of my views of the aims and goals of science, of the rationale of scientific change, and of the consequent relations between science and the philosophy of science, and in particular of the methodology of the latter (Leplin 1984, 1987, 1988a, 1988b). Here I will respond to those criticisms, and also reply to some related criticisms made by other writers.

The problem of synthesis in biology may have reference to the evolutionary origin of living organisms in past time, a process not directly observable but conceivably reconstructible in broad outline: thus to the biochemist this evolution may appear as the evolution of the special biological compounds, to the psychologist as the evolution of “mind”—or at least of types of behavior. Or the problem may refer to the synthesis of the individual animal or plant, a process of construction which typically starts from a detached portion of a parent organism, such as an egg or seed; this is the problem of individual development or ontogeny and is not essentially different from the general problem of growth. But it is clear that the processes of phyletic evolution and of ontogeny must be considered together, since evolutionary history is in reality the history of a succession of individual organisms, each developing from its germ, i.e. of ontogenies; and the ontogenetic process, so faithfully repeated in each individual as it comes into existence, is itself a product of evolution, having originated (apparently by slow and tentative efforts) in the remote past. The succession of individuals has undergone progressive diversification, culminating in the present condition. We may describe our problem, then, as the problem of the factors underlying the synthesis of a highly special process, that by which the diffusely distributed nonliving materials and energies of nature are brought together in a special kind of unification and transformed into a living organism.

A long-standing objection to Fodor's version of the Representational Theory of Mind (RTM) argues that in ascribing intentional content to an organism's representational states there needs to be some way of distinguishing between the kinds of organisms that have such representational capacity and those kinds that haven't. Without a principled distinction there would be no way of delimiting the appropriate domain of intentional ascription. As Fodor (1986) suggests, if the objection holds, we should have no good reason for withholding intentional ascription from paper clips. Fodor (1986) has defended RTM against this slippery slope objection. He distinguishes between the kinds of creatures that exhibit selective responses to nomic properties of stimuli (for example, psychophysical properties) and the kinds of creatures that also respond selectively to nonnomic properties of stimuli (for example, being a crumpled shirt). The distinction marks the differences between two kinds of “primal scenes” in which lawful relations are said to hold between an organism's behavior, representational state, and stimulus property. The arguments for the distinction are provocative but counterexamples show them to be inconclusive.

This paper studies the extent to which probability functions are recursively definable. It proves, in particular, that the (absolute) probability of a statement A is recursively definable from a certain point on, to wit: from the (absolute) probabilities of certain atomic components and conjunctions of atomic components of A on, but to no further extent. And it proves that, generally, the probability of a statement A relative to a statement B is recursively definable from a certain point on, to wit: from the probabilities relative to that very B of certain atomic components and conjunctions of atomic components of A, but again to no further extent. These and other results are extended to the less studied case where A and B are compounded from atomic statements by means of “∀” as well as “~” and “&”. The absolute probability functions considered are those of Kolmogorov and Carnap, and the relative ones are those of Kolmogorov, Carnap, Rényi, and Popper.

C. S. Peirce argued that inductive reasoning and probability judgments are adequately secure only in the indefinitely long run, and that therefore it is illogical to employ these modes of inference unless one's chief devotion is to the interests of an ideal community of all rational beings, past, present, and future. He thought of this devotion as a “social sentiment”, involving self-sacrifice. An examination of his argument shows that the attitude presupposed by his conceptions of induction and probability is in fact not self-sacrificial and is social only in a very special sense. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that this attitude is characteristic of practicing scientists; and this is a reason for questioning Peirce's analysis of induction and probability.

The following is an analysis of the relationship between incompatibility, conflict and breakdown. It is restricted to situations of a certain sort — to the isolation of the conditions under which breakdowns occur. These conditions are specific and defineable. Under certain circumstances incompatibilities and conflicts culminate in growth, under others in separation, under others in outright destruction of one of the incompatible elements, under others still in dominance-subserviance relationships and under others in breakdown. This is a matter of some importance since influential current conceptions treat incompatibility and conflict as though they were uniform in outcome. The followers of Hegel regard them as always making for growth whereas certain contemporaries (Toynbee and others) look upon them as the prime movers of breakdown and decline. The truth of the matter would seem to be that neither of these theories is correct. Conflicts vary, their consequences vary and the conditions under which they occur vary. For empirical analysis the important thing is the disengagement of the differences making for different culminations as well as the relations common to all; and the working out, as far as possible, of the way in which alterations in certain basic factors make for changes in result. A specific analysis of this sort may be valuable for foresight and even for a degree of control where the conditions are accessible to our manipulation.

Formal and social epistemologists have devoted significant attention to the question of how to aggregate the credences of a group of agents who disagree about the probabilities of events. Moss (2011) and Pettigrew (2019) argue that group credences can be a linear mean of the credences of each individual in the group. By contrast, I argue that if the epistemic value of a credence function is determined solely by its accuracy, then we should, where possible, aggregate the underlying statistical models that individuals use to generate their credence functions, using “stacking” techniques from statistics and machine learning first developed by Wolpert (1992).

In this paper I shall argue that to a very significant extent mathematics is concept analysis, and that though the analysis of mathematical concepts is in a number of ways different from the analysis of philosophic concepts, the similarities between these two types of concept analyses are as important and far reaching as the differences. I shall argue that because mathematics and philosophy are each concerned with the analysis of concepts, they are much more like one another epistemologically than is often recognized. In insisting upon fundamental similarities between mathematics and philosophy, I shall be agreeing with the classical rationalists, but on a very different conception of both philosophy and mathematics from that held by the rationalists. The rationalists wished to assimilate philosophy to mathematics as understood in their time; viz. as a body of necessary propositions, which followed from self-evident axioms and postulates, revealed to the natural light of reason. As against this rationalistic position, I wish to make a comparison in the reverse direction, in which I shall presuppose a certain conception of philosophy as something given, and then insist that mathematics is in many important respects similar to philosophy as so understood. In particular, I wish to insist that there is a significant comparison between mathematics on the one hand, and philosophy as understood by probably a majority of philosophers today on the other—viz., philosophy understood as concept analysis—, where it is conceded that the analysis of philosophic concepts is inherently a tentative matter, wherein it is impossible—at least in the usual case—to offer any one analysis of a given philosophic concept as absolutely certain and beyond all revision. I shall argue that by virtue of the fact that mathematics, like philosophy, is concerned with the analysis of concepts, many at least of the propositions advanced within it are inherently revisable, and do not possess the kind of certainty the rationalists ascribed to them.

Uncertainty about the actual orientation of the measurement device has been claimed to open a loophole for hidden variable models of quantum mechanics. In this paper I describe the statistics of inaccurate spin measurements by unsharp spin observables. A no-go theorem for hidden variable models of the inaccurate measurement statistics follows: There is a finite set of directions for which not all results of inaccurate spin measurements can be predetermined in a non-contextual way. In contrast to an earlier theorem (Breuer 2002) this result does not rely on the assigment of approximate truth values, and it holds under weaker assumptions on the measurement inaccuracy.