The device of setting forth an argument in the form of a postulate set, while not unknown to jurisprudence, is nevertheless sufficiently novel to justify a brief account of the process. At one time human thought took axioms and postulates for avowals of unalterable truth, but the nineteenth century made common the practice of speculating with alternative presuppositional systems, so that deeper insight into the nature of this scientific device revealed it as merely a method among many for clarifying and fecundating thought.

Bertrand Russell, in one of his gentler jibes at the pragmatists, says that this school would obviously prefer Othello, the man of action to Hamlet, the man of thought. This figure is singularly inept since Hamlet brought about the death of six people through violent action. That more than equalled the score rolled up by the presumably more active Othello. What Hamlet lacked was not the power to act but an adequate theory of action. Having first attempted to avoid the issue presented by the murder of his father, he is swept up in a gale of violence because of that very attempt at avoidance.

I should like to begin with a remark which, although personal, is not without relevance both to the special topic of this paper and the general purpose of an International Congress of Philosophy. Having had the opportunity of studying and teaching philosophy in various countries of the Western World I have come to realize strongly the enormous power of national traditions in philosophy. Much more so than scientific research and, I believe, even the arts, our philosophizing is tied down to and captivated by particular spiritual climates, particular national traditions. Notwithstanding the apparatus of international congresses, the various personal and professional contacts between philosophers of different nationality, and the translation of at least the most important works into other languages, there is, I have come to feel, a mutual contempt, a mutual misunderstanding, a mutual intolerance, that are frightening. You will remember Nietzsche's sarcasms concerning English philosophy. I have heard Heidegger say that the only language in which one can really philosophize, besides Greek, is German. The German contempt for French clarity and English factuality is equalled by the irony which French and English philosophers show towards German “depth.” The examples could be multiplied. Scrutinize your university programs and I am convinced you will be startled by the enormous emphasis upon philosophers of your own nationality. I know German Ph.D.s who have never read more than 200 pages of English and French philosophy. Courses in contemporary philosophy give usually 90 percent of their time to the philosophical scene in the particular country to which the teachers belongs and only the small remainder to the international scene.

1. Introduction. The purpose of this paper is to present an initial sociological analysis of science as an institution. This kind of analysis has long been made of other aspects of culture: of the family, the state, religion, economic enterprise and the like. An institution, as the term is used here, is simply

Those—other social scientists as well as laymen—who have read recent studies of national character and culture by anthropologists, while not having had experience in this field themselves, often seem to believe that the results which such anthropological investigators obtain are interesting, but that the methods used were intuitional, magical, or just invisible. The status of the work is cast in doubt, as falling short of an ideal that scientific description and analysis must be reproducible by any observer to whom a set of techniques of the discipline has been communicated. This paper attempts to show why and how such a belief is erroneous, and then to describe some of the fundamentals of method in current cultural anthropology as used in research and as related to the general structure of scientific method today.

In books on the calculus of probability, there have been many accounts as to what is the meaning of the term “probable.” We can readily divide them into three groups. The first sometimes defines probability in terms of the ratio between the number of cases favorable to an event and the number of equally possible cases. Sometimes probability is defined in some way other than this, but the above formulation, or one similar to it is used to describe the “measure of probability.” This concept is what is called “the classical concept” of probability and was held by the great workers in the field of probability from the beginning of the eighteenth and opening of the nineteenth centuries, including James Bernoulli (1713), Thomas Bayes (1763), and the Marquis de Laplace (1812). The second conceives of probability as a logical relation between hypothesis and evidence. Following this conception, one could identify “probability” with “degree of confirmation.” We will term this the “logical concept.” The third group identified probability with the relative frequency with which a property occurs in a specified class of elements. We will call this the “frequency concept.”