It is common to consider an area of science as a system of real or sup posed truths which not only continuously extends itself, but also needs periodical revision and therefore tests the inventive capacity of each generation of scholars anew. It sounds highly implausible that a science at one time would be completed, that at that point within its scope there would be no problems left to solve. Indeed, the solution of a scientific problem inevitably raises new questions, so (...) that our eagerness for knowledge will never find lasting satisfaction. Nevertheless there is one science which seems to form an exception to this rule, formal logic, the theory of rigorous argumentation. It seems to have reached the ideal endpoint of every scientific aspiration already very shortly after its inception; using the work of some predecessors, Aristotle, or so it is at least assumed by many, has brought this branch of science once and for all to a conclusion. Of course this doesn't sound that implausible. We apparently know what rigorous argumentation is; otherwise various sciences, in particular pure mathematics, would be completely impossible. And if we know what rigorous argumentation is, then it cannot be difficult to trace once and for all the rules which govern it. The unique subject of formal logic would therefore entail that this science, in variance with the rule which holds for all other sciences, has been able to reach completion at a certain point in history. (shrink)

Another striking deviation with regard to philosophical tradition consists in the fact that contemporary schools in the philosophy of mathematics, with the exception again of Brouwer's intuitionism, hardly ever refer to mathematical thought.

A few days before his death my husband requested me to write a few words of thanks on the publication of this collection of articles. He had already prepared the greater part of the volume for the press and had also decided on the title Science a Road to Wisdom. His original selection was somewhat more comprehensive, which is still partly reflected in the Preface. Knowing how much he wished to see this collection published, I respectfully and lovingly fulfil his (...) request, thanking Else M. Barth and J. J. A. Mooij for their extensive and expert care in putting the final touches to the volume. ADDITION TO THE TRANSLATION Finally, I wish to thank Peter G. E. Wesly for his willingness to undertake the translation of the book into English. c. P. C. BETH-PASTOOR IX PREFACE In this republication of a number of philosophical studies I have refrained from including articles of a specialized nature on symbolic logic and the methodology of the exact sciences. There was no cause to include my contributions towards the didactics of mathematics and physics, nor did I consider it appropriate to reprint pieces of a predominantly polemical nature. I decided, however, that a very modest selection from my purely historical work would not be out of place. (shrink)

Many philosophers have considered logical reasoning as an inborn ability of mankind and as a distinctive feature in the human mind; but we all know that the distribution of this capacity, or at any rate its development, is very unequal. Few people are able to set up a cogent argument; others are at least able to follow a logical argument and even to detect logical fallacies. Nevertheless, even among educated persons there are many who do not even attain this relatively (...) modest level of development. According to my personal observations, lack of logical ability may be due to various circumstances. In the first place, I mention lack of general intelligence, insufficient power of concentration, and absence of formal education. Secondly, however, I have noticed that many people are unable, or sometimes rather unwilling, to argue ex hypothesi; such persons cannot, or will not, start from premisses which they know or believe to be false or even from premisses whose truth is not, in their opinion, sufficient ly warranted. Or, if they agree to start from such premisses, they sooner or later stray away from the argument into attempts first to settle the truth or falsehood of the premisses. Presumably this attitude results either from lack of imagination or from undue moral rectitude. On the other hand, proficiency in logical reasoning is not in itself a guarantee for a clear theoretic insight into the principles and foundations of logic. (shrink)

In contributing a foreword to this book I am complying with a wish my husband expressed a few days before his death. He had completed the manuscript of this work, which may be considered a companion volume to his book Formal Methods. The task of seeing it through the press was undertaken by Mr. J. J. A. Mooij, acting director of the Institute for Research in Foundations and the Philosophy of Science (Instituut voor Grondslagenonderzoek en Filoso:fie der Exacte Wetenschappen) of (...) the University of Amsterdam, with the help of Mrs. E. M. Barth, lecturer at the Institute. I wish to thank Mr. Mooij and Mrs. Barth most cordially for the care with which they have acquitted themselves of this delicate task and for the speed with which they have brought it to completion. I also wish to express my gratitude to Miss L. E. Minning, M. A., for the helpful advice she has so kindly given to Mr. Mooij and Mrs. Barth during the proof reading. C. P. C. BETH-PASTOOR VII PREFACE A few years ago Mr. Horace S. (shrink)

Throughout more than two millennia philosophers adhered massively to ideal standards of scientific rationality going back ultimately to Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora. These standards got progressively shaped by and adapted to new scientific needs and tendencies. Nevertheless, a core of conditions capturing the fundamentals of what a proper science should look like remained remarkably constant all along. Call this cluster of conditions the Classical Model of Science. In this paper we will do two things. First of all, we will propose a (...) general and systematized account of the Classical Model of Science. Secondly, we will offer an analysis of the philosophical significance of this model at different historical junctures by giving an overview of the connections it has had with a number of important topics. The latter include the analytic-synthetic distinction, the axiomatic method, the hierarchical order of sciences and the status of logic as a science. Our claim is that particularly fruitful insights are gained by seeing themes such as these against the background of the Classical Model of Science. In an appendix we deal with the historiographical background of this model by considering the systematizations of Aristotle’s theory of science offered by Heinrich Scholz, and in his footsteps by Evert W. Beth. (shrink)

Throughout more than two millennia philosophers adhered massively to ideal standards of scientific rationality going back ultimately to Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora . These standards got progressively shaped by and adapted to new scientific needs and tendencies. Nevertheless, a core of conditions capturing the fundamentals of what a proper science should look like remained remarkably constant all along. Call this cluster of conditions the Classical Model of Science . In this paper we will do two things. First of all, we will (...) propose a general and systematized account of the Classical Model of Science. Secondly, we will offer an analysis of the philosophical significance of this model at different historical junctures by giving an overview of the connections it has had with a number of important topics. The latter include the analytic-synthetic distinction, the axiomatic method, the hierarchical order of sciences and the status of logic as a science. Our claim is that particularly fruitful insights are gained by seeing themes such as these against the background of the Classical Model of Science. In an appendix we deal with the historiographical background of this model by considering the systematizations of Aristotle’s theory of science offered by Heinrich Scholz, and in his footsteps by Evert W. Beth. (shrink)

Though E. W. Beth is famous for his contributions to logic aspects of his philosophical reflections and details of its development are almost unknown. In his work four periods can be distinguished: the neo-kantian, the anti-kantian, the anti-irrationalist and the logical one. Within this framework it is possible to individuate a core around which Beth developed his reflections: it is the interplay between philosophy and the sciences. His philosophy was always linked to the sciences in two ways: He (...) steadily checked his philosophical ideas against the current situation in foundational research and he occupied himself with the general question of the relationship between philosophy and the sciences. (shrink)

Though E. W. Beth is famous for his contributions to logic aspects of his philosophical reflections and details of its development are almost unknown. In his work four periods can be distinguished: the neo-kantian, the anti-kantian, the anti-irrationalist and the logical one. Within this framework it is possible to individuate a core around which Beth developed his reflections: it is the interplay between philosophy and the sciences. His philosophy was always linked to the sciences in two ways: He (...) steadily checked his philosophical ideas against the current situation in foundational research and he occupied himself with the general question of the relationship between philosophy and the sciences. (shrink)

During a conference entitled “Un logicien consciencieux. La philosophie de Evert Willem Beth,” held in Nancy in 1998 and published in this journal, volume 3, cahier 4 [Barth, Heinzmann et al. 1998-1999], the participants regretted that a reasoned biography of Beth was not available. In view of the efforts made since then in this direction, in particular by Paul van Ulsen in his PhD thesis in Dutch [2000], this article attempts to provide an overview of (...) class='Hi'>Beth’s work for a broader community of philosophers of science. However, my focus is not so much on Beth’s widely discussed and important contributions to mathematical logic, where his most creative merits reside. My aim is to emphasize Beth’s philosophical and cultural background. Both are also discussed in the first two chapters of Ulsen’s thesis, which globally focuses on Beth’s work in logic. Of course, philosophical and scientific aspects cannot be systematically separated, but Beth’s influence on the philosophy of mathematics between the 1950s and 1960s seems to me large enough to highlight it here. Beth is one of the very few philosophers who also presented highly technically relevant results in logic, or one of the few logicians who also wrote philosophical papers, not only in his youth or old age, but throughout his career. In his 741-page magnum opus The Foundations of Mathematics [1959], he combines the treatment of philosophical and logico-mathematical problems under the perspective that the traditional deductive procedure is an essential and not merely incidental element in mathematical proof so that “logic must play the principal role in a philosophical examination of mathematical thought” [1959, XI]. By 1937, Beth was “convinced that the only possibility of founding mathematics in a truly satisfactory way is to apply intuitive and formal methods simultaneously in such a way that they can control and verify each other” (“L’évidence intuitive dans les mathématiques modernes” [1937, 165]). In 1956, he still justified the emphasis on the intuitive element of proof by “certain complications that the development of these [formalist] tendencies would later give rise to” (“Poincaré et la philosophie” [1956b, 238, transl. G. H.]). (shrink)

Logic is breaking out of the confines of the single-agent static paradigm that has been implicit in all formal systems until recent times. We sketch some recent developments that take logic as an account of information-driven interaction. These two features, the dynamic and the social, throw fresh light on many issues within logic and its connections with other areas, such as epistemology and game theory.