Because statements like ‘This object is soluble in aqua regia’ involve the causal modalities, we call them causal dispositional statements. Now while this involvement has long been recognized, no thorough examination of its exact nature has ever been made. One purpose of this paper is to begin such an examination. In Sec. 2 we will suggest an analysis of causal dispositional statements, and in Sec. 3 we will discuss some philosophic issues to which this analysis is relevant.

Our purpose in this paper is to characterize the methodological role of judges in clinical psychology. What, methodologically speaking, do the judges do for the experimenter in this area? Why, and in what ways, are the experimenter's procedures more respectable, his results more valid, when he employs judges? In order to present a concrete example of the use of judges we begin by describing in some detail a procedure actually employed in the testing of an hypothesis. Next we contrast this procedure with a prima facie analogous one from chemistry, noting that an appeal to judges here would be clearly superfluous. Our problem then presents itself in the form: “Why these sorts of differences between chemistry and clinical psychology?”. As the argument develops it becomes clear that the methodological significance of what is called “clinical insight” (or “intuition”) must be carefully considered in any attempt to understand the peculiar importance of the judges’ role in psychology. It is argued that the absence of precise criteria for typical concepts of clinical psychology is closely connected with the frequent appeals to clinical insight. And it is urged that the full significance of the employment of judges emerges only when seen in the light of this conceptual uncertainty, and of the clinician's attempt to operate scientifically in spite of that uncertainty.

Among recent developments in the anthropological sciences, hardly any have found so much attention and led to so much controversy as have the views advanced by the late Benjamin Whorf.

The hypothesis offered by Whorf is,

“that the commonly held belief that the cognitive processes of all human beings possess a common logical structure which operates prior to and independently of communication through language, is erroneous. It is Whorf's view that the linguistic patterns themselves determine what the individual perceives in this world and how he thinks about it. Since these patterns vary widely, the modes of thinking and perceiving in groups utilizing different linguistic systems will result in basically different world views” (Fearing, 1954).

“We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar. … We cut up and organize the spread and flow of events as we do largely because, through our mother tongue, we are parties to an agreement to do so, not because nature itself is segmented in exactly that way for all to see” (Whorf, 1952, p. 21)

The concept of action-research has been developed during the last decade, mainly at the Research Center for Group Dynamics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and at the Commission for Community Interrelations of the American Jewish Congress—centers founded by the late Kurt Lewin whose original and creative mind has made many contributions to social-psychological and sociological research. I owe my acquaintance with this new approach to the Research Center, particularly to Ronald Lippitt and Alvin Zander. Yet most of the following observations are based on my research experience during the last four years. The responsibility for what I am saying is, therefore, completely my own.

The developments in 20th century physics which have brought into question the status of causality in subatomic phenomena are common knowledge today in the philosophical world. For the purposes of our discussion attention focusses on the quantum-mechanical solutions which describe atomic states by probability distributions instead of by exact values of observable variables.

One of the tasks with which communication engineers are presented is that of devising a mechanism by which a significant sequence of words, a message, produced by somebody, the sender of the message, is reproduced at some other place, with the shortest practical time lag. The reproduction must be such that the receiver of the message will be able to understand what the sender meant by his message, at least, if he knows the sender's language (or, perhaps, his specific use of the language). The following illustration is typical: A writes on a sheet of paper “I love you” and wishes that B, 3000 miles away, should become aware of the full content of this message, with little delay and at a low cost. There will be institutions, in a capitalistic society, which will compete with each other in providing A, for a price, with the required service. Those companies which perform these services most satisfactorily, i.e., with an overall better combination of faithfulness, time lag, and cost, will get the job. The executives of these companies will hire engineers and put them to work on improving this overall combination.

In order to determine what are the metaphysical presuppositions of science (if any), we have to first define the terms ‘presupposition’ and ‘metaphysics’ or ‘metaphysical’. We shall begin with the former.

Arthur Pap in his article Does Science Have Metaphysical Presuppositions? discusses two senses of the term. A presupposition may be (a) a necessary condition: p presupposes q, dt = p implies q, i.e. not-g implies not-p. (b) a premise or a rule (or a set of rules) of inference used in deriving a belief. Thus in this sense, p presupposes q means that if q were false, then the belief in p would cease to be grounded.

Several aspects of the work of George H. Mead have attracted a rather considerable amount of attention in recent years. The attention devoted by several disciplines to the relevant aspects of his work, however, has not involved an explicit focusing upon his philosophy of science. This is deemed regrettable, at least by this writer, in view of the fact that Mead's philosophy of science appears to be a rather substantial conceptualization of the actual research process.

American social scientists, with the possible exception of the anthropologists, have typically been ethnocentric in their writings and research. Most of their studies are simply unique to a particular institutional complex, possessing little generality beyond a single socio-cultural system. Nevertheless, social scientists nowadays are evincing increased interest in comparative studies. They are coming to realize that many of their generalizations may be found wanting when tested in the laboratory of world cultures. For the solution of many significant problems cross-cultural comparison seems essential—the relationships among the variables involved must be examined under diverse cultural conditions.

This paper considers combinations of frictionless mechanical amplifiers arranged in a cycle so that the amplified signal passes around through an endless chain of such systems the output of the last system being fed into the first. It appears that while each amplifier may be reversible in the absence of friction, the effect of the combination is such that the signal would be unable to pass around the cycle indefinitely, using the same energy over and over again. It is felt that the assumptions upon which this cycle is based are related to some of the conditions met with in consideration of open thermodynamic systems such as heat engines and living organisms when in finite environments.

Dialectic, like love, has a good and a bad reputation. This ambivalence may be illustrated in different ways in almost every period of philosophical history. One may even suspect that this richness borders upon confusion. And yet, the attempt to orientate oneself in this jungle of meanings can be expected to be profitable, for the term “dialectic” has always referred, although often obscurely, to notions and processes of the first importance. The definition, illustration, and evaluation of the uses of this term should, accordingly, be a task promising some value.

Biologists have recently found it useful to give a prominent place in their theories to the concept of a plant or animal population. Genetics, ecology, paleontology, and especially the theory of evolution have been able to make notable advances as a result of employing the concept in their interpretations and inferences. The concept has not, however, first been rigorously defined and then put to work. That is rarely the way fruitful scientific notions develop. On the contrary, in most discussions the term “population” has a large degree of vagueness about it. This is due in part to the fact that the term has been taken over from ordinary language and employed in a number of novel contexts. But some of the vagueness also seems to be an unavoidable consequence of the immensely intricate phenomena to which the term refers. In any case, the role played by the concept of a population in evolutionary theory makes even a brief inquiry into its meaning worthwhile. The present paper is concerned with such an inquiry. What I wish to do is, first, to review the major ways in which the concept has been used by biologists in connection with recent formulations of the theory of evolution; and secondly, to comment on a few misleading issues which may arise if care is not taken to observe certain logical and linguistic distinctions.

1. Introduction. Now that operationalism has evolved from a battle cry of a militant minority to a widely accepted maxim of scientific method, and has in the process lost much of its initial intransigeance, it seems time to devote more attention to the application of operational analysis to the social sciences. This paper attempts to explicate some basic concepts in the behavioral sciences, both individual and social, namely, ‘control’ and ‘unfreedom,’ as well as the concepts by which they will be defined, such as ‘persuasion,’ ‘constraint,’ ‘deprivation,’ and ‘punishment’. This analysis will enable us to ascertain with greater precision some of the rather intricate connections which exist between these relations.

1. The Problem. In spite of the vast discussion which has been devoted to the theory of probability, the problem of the short run has received surprisingly little attention. Yet, the whole significance of the theory depends upon a solution of this problem, for without an answer to it we cannot say why it is useful to have knowledge of probabilities or why we should take account of this knowledge in making practical decisions. As far as I know, Charles Peirce was the first to appreciate the importance and difficulty of the question, and his characteristically vivid formulation serves as an excellent starting point for its consideration. He says:

According to what has been said, the idea of probability essentially belongs to a kind of inference which is repeated indefinitely. An individual inference must be either true or false and can show no effect of probability; and therefore, in reference to a single case considered in itself, probability can have no meaning. Yet if a man had to choose between drawing a card from a pack containing twenty-five red cards and a black one, or from a pack containing twenty-five black cards and a red one, and that of a red one were destined to transport him to eternal felicity, and that of a black one to consign him to everlasting woe, it would be folly to deny that he ought to prefer the pack containing the larger proportion of red cards, although from the nature of the risk, it cannot be repeated. [Collected Papers, 2.652]

In relating the problem of comparison to that of conceptualization, Dr. Sjoberg brings into focus a central methodological problem of social science. For to compare is to discover unity in diversity and differences among similarities, that is, to uncover structure. The first act in this process is to name the parts and the relations among them, and naming, of course, both stems from and induces conceptualizations.

In 1948 Hempel and Oppenheim proposed an explicatum for the concept of systematic power 1, pp. 164–167. Since that time some shortcomings have been found in this first attempt. It is the purpose of this paper to show that one can keep the basic approach of the ‘48 paper, and overcome the known disadvantages by means of changes in the details of the definition. In this improvement certain tools will be used that were not available in 1948.

It has been argued repeatedly that the modern study of social and cultural evolution took its inspiration and form from Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Descent of Man. In 1920, Robert H. Lowie (27; pp. 55–56) observed that it was after evolutionary principles had been accepted in biology that they were applied to social phenomena, and that Lewis Henry Morgan was among the first to make the application. Sir James George Frazer (16; p. 581), at about the same time, dated the birth of anthropology from the promulgation of the evolution theory of Darwin and Wallace in 1859 and maintained that “this conception of evolution … supplies a basis for the modern science of anthropology.” Harry Elmer Barnes (1; pp. 25–26) similarly traced the development of anthropology from the theory of organic evolution and advised the student that he “need not concern himself with the history of method in sociology before the entry of Darwinian concepts.”

When Whitehead's views of relativity are mentioned, everyone thinks of the views Whitehead published between 1919 and 1924. Concerning these views, C. D. Broad is “depressed”1 (1: pp. 143–4) that physicists paid so little attention. And Victor Lowe has written:

There is a bare possibility that Whitehead's theory of relativity may yet affect the history of science. (4: p. 69)

In “Studies In The Logic Of Explanation” (Philosophy of Science, XV, 1948) Hempel and Oppenheim analyze the basic pattern of scientific explanation. One of the difficult problems which they acknowledge is “whether and how the analysis of explanation can be extended from the case where all general explanatory principles invoked are of a strictly universal or ‘deterministic’ form to the case where explanatory reference is made to statistical hypotheses.” It is hoped that the remarks which follow may contribute a little toward clarifying the issue.

Phenomenology, currently the most active philosophical movement on the European scene, has shown persistent concern for psychological problems and principles, and for the science of psychology in general. This concern has taken the form of various attempts to amend psychology according to phenomenological precepts and methods with the intent of providing it with a new metaphysical basis. Recent examples of this trend are the textbook of Snygg and Combs (20) and the two books published in France by the philosopher, Merleau-Ponty (16, 18).