The most outstanding feature of this book is that here, for the first time, is made available in a single volume all the important historical essays Edgar Zilsel (1891-1944) published during WWII on the emergence of modern science. This edition also contains one previously unpublished essay and an extended version of an essay published earlier. In these essays, Zilsel developed the now famous thesis, named after him, that science came into being when, in the late Middle Ages, (...) the social barriers between the intellectuals and the artisans were eroded, due to the fact that the rapidly expanding commercial classes of that period had a keen interest in improvements in technology. This class was city-based and stimulated a social environment in which men of learning came to regard the craftsmen and technicians with a new respect, in which they no longer felt any contempt for manual work and in which theory and practice were eventually combined to produce modern science. This critical edition also carries a long introduction in which much new material about Zilsel's life and work is presented. It suggests that a radical new look at Zilsel's project needs to be taken. Zilsel's essays on the history of science look like a standard case study to substantiate a particular position on the origins of modern science, but they were also an attempt to show that lawlike explanation in history and social theory is possible. It is claimed that Zilsel's historical essays were a part of another project he was working on which focused on the idea that social phenomena were open to causal explanation as much as physical phenomena. Hence the volume also contains the essays Zilsel wrote in relation to this other project. Previously there have been published a German and an Italian edition of the Zilsel essays. This edition is the first in English; compared to the other two editions this one is the first that includes unpublished material and the first to undertake a serious effort to research Zilsel's life and work. What is special about this volume is the well-articulated social perspective it takes on the origins of modern science. Audience: Students in early modern social history/history of science as well as professional philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science. (shrink)

When phenomenology was introduced as a new science by Husserl its methods were applied first to objects of logic. Later phenomenological investigation expanded gradually to the fields of psychology, ethics, esthetics, and sociology. More rarely, objects of the natural sciences have been treated phenomenologically. Scattered indications of this kind are to be found in authors who do not belong to the most intimate circle of Husserl's school. Extensively, however, the phenomenological method has been applied to objects of the natural sciences (...) once only, namely by Hedwig Conrad-Martius, a favorite pupil of Husserl's, in her Realontologie and Farben. Yet this less known branch of phenomenology is particularly interesting. Husserl stressed the basic difference between phenomenological ideation on the one hand and psychological introspection and description of the immediate data of awareness on the other. The peculiarity and scientific productivity of phenomenological method, therefore, can be studied best in a field which is as far removed from psychology as possible. We shall try to analyze the papers of Conrad-Martius more fully and shall refer to other authors occasionally as illustrations. (shrink)

The question as to the existence of laws in history has frequently been discussed. A new a discussion may yet be useful, since some mis- conceptions based on incorrect comparisons with the natural sciences have been brought forward by both advocates and opponents of historical laws. We shall try to clarify the problem by applying a few ideas familiar to physicists and astronomers to the condi- tions peculiar to history. Physics is the most mature of all empirical sciences as to (...) method. In physics the law-concept has been used for three hundred years. It may be assumed, therefore, that most of the difficulties in its application to other fields have their physical counterpart and can be clarified most easily with the help of physical concepts. A few preliminary examples of historical laws will be given towards the end of the article. (shrink)

What is the relationship of history to the phylogenetic evolution of man? Historians, like all specialists, are wont to restrict themselves to their own problems and, therefore, do not deal with this question. Only some popular books on the history of the world cross the dividing line between social and natural science. They start with the origin of the solar system, describe the development of the crust of the earth and of life, turn to prehistoric civilization and ancient Egypt, and (...) eventually finish with the history of present times. It is striking that those expositions become more and more detailed the nearer they come to their end. Near the beginning one page describes ten million years, near the end ten months. (shrink)

When phenomenology was introduced as a new science by Husserl its methods were applied first to objects of logic. Later phenomenological investigation expanded gradually to the fields of psychology, ethics, esthetics, and sociology. More rarely, objects of the natural sciences have been treated phenomenologically. Scattered indications of this kind are to be found in authors who do not belong to the most intimate circle of Husserl's school. Extensively, however, the phenomenological method has been applied to objects of the natural sciences (...) once only, namely by Hedwig Conrad-Martius, a favorite pupil of Husserl's, in her Realontologie and Farben. Yet this less known branch of phenomenology is particularly interesting. Husserl stressed the basic difference between phenomenological ideation on the one hand and psychological introspection and description of the immediate data of awareness on the other. The peculiarity and scientific productivity of phenomenological method, therefore, can be studied best in a field which is as far removed from psychology as possible. We shall try to analyze the papers of Conrad-Martius more fully and shall refer to other authors occasionally as illustrations. (shrink)

Fully developed, science is to be found only in modern European-American civilization. As its development began in early capitalism we shall have to study the period from the end of the Middle Ages until 1600. Results obtained by ancient mathematicians, astronomers, and physicists and by medieval Arabic physicians have greatly influenced the beginning of science in modern Europe. We shall discuss not this influence, but the social and economic conditions which made it possible.

This book provides a new all-round perspective on the life and work of Edgar Zilsel (1891-1944) as a philosopher, historian, and sociologist. He was close to the Vienna Circle and has been hitherto almost exclusively referred to in terms of the so-called “Zilsel thesis” on the origins of modern science. Much beyond this “thesis”, Zilsel’s brilliant work provides original insights on a broad number of topics, ranging from the philosophy of probability and statistics to the concept (...) of “genius”, from the issues of scientific laws and theories to the sociological background of science and philosophy, and to the political analysis of the problems of his time. Praised by Herbert Feigl as an “outstanding brilliant mind”, Zilsel, being as a Social-Democrat of Jewish origins, mostly led a life of hardship marked by emigration and coming to a sudden and tragic end by suicide in 1944. The impossibility of an academic career has hindered the reception of Zilsel’s scientific work for a long time. This volume is a contribution to its late reception, providing new insights especially into his work during his years in Vienna; moreover, it shows the heuristic value of Zilsel’s ideas for future Scholar research – in philosophy, history, and sociology. -/- (ISSN: 0929-6328). (shrink)

In the summer of 1943 Edgar Zilsel resigned from his membership in the exile organization of Austrian Social Democrats, a political movement he had joined as a young man back in Vienna. Zilsel is known as an innovative scholar bridging philosophy, history and sociology of science, and belonging to the so-called left wing of the Vienna Circle of Logical Emipricism. Details of his political convictions are less recognized. A recently detected manuscript illuminates his worldview: His resignation letter (...) had been accompanied by a short exposition of his interpretation of socialism near the end of World War II. The article introduces Zilsel, his life and work and publishes for the first time Zilsel’s statement from 1943. (shrink)

The unity of science movement was itself far from unified. There may have been unity on the rallying call for a unity of science but that is as far as it went. Not only was there disagreement among the main protagonists on what was meant by the unity of science, but also on how to achieve it. In this paper I shall deal with Edgar Zilsel’s (1891-1944) conception. It represents an interesting break with the more programmatic approaches of (...) Carnap, Neurath; Zilsel emphasizes the need for an empirical demonstration of the unity of science, which has interesting meta-philosophical implications. The unity of science is not just central to his research programme; it is what constitutes the latter’s unifying principle, although this is far from evident if one takes a look at the historical essays he published in exile in the USA during the 1940s. (These important essays on the emergence of science, well known among historians of early modern science, have given rise to the so-called Zilsel Thesis, which holds that modern science came into being when, between 1300 and 1600, the social barriers between those who ‘labored with there minds and tongues’, i.e. the university scholars and the humanists, and those who ‘worked with their hands’, i.e the superior artisans, eroded because of the rise of free-enterprise capitalism.) But simultaneously, he also published a couple of smaller and far less known essays, directed against Southwest-German Neo-Kantianism (Rickert, Windelband), Dilthey’s philosophy of life, and interpretative sociology (Max Weber, W. Sombart, G. Simmel, R. Stammler, Alfred Weber, etc.). His main argumentwas that philosophers of cultural science and the humanities had a falseunderstanding of natural science. Because of this false understanding, they erroneously postulated a fundamental methodological difference between the natural sciences and the human sciences. According to Zilsel, this difference does not exist. In his view the historian is basically confronted with the same problems as the natural scientist. If the science of history is not compared with classical mechanics but with, for example, geophysics – that is, “the physics of earthquakes, sea-currents, volcanology, and meteorology” – one will arrive at the conclusion “that historical phenomena are hardly more difficult to predict than the weather, and certainly no more difficult than earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. What would scientists think of a geophysicist who abandoned the search for geophysical laws because of their inexactness? ” (SOMS: 202). (shrink)

Initially it seems surprising that Edgar Zilsel’s work has found as little response among philosophers as it has. After all, his contributions to the Vienna Circle’s debates about probability and protocol statements were published in Erkenntnis. Already his doctoral dissertation dealt with a central problem of modern philosophy of science—the status of statistical laws in physics—and revealed a remarkably knowledgeable mathematician, physicist and philosopher. Yet the way in which Zilsel raised the issues, namely via Leibniz, Spinoza and (...) Kant, was not easy to accept for many of the later logical empiricists. Zilsel stuck with what in his dissertation he had called the “problem of application” and held that it needed to be solved even once the framework of logical empiricism had been accepted. By contrast, Richard von Mises and Otto Neurath considered it a pseudo-problem. Zilsel’s views are difficult to categorise and nowadays even difficult to understand. Just as Mises and Neurath were puzzled by the problem of application, so contemporary readers are likely to be puzzled by Zilsel’s search for “historical laws”. What were they supposed to be and why did Zilsel think it so important to discover them? (shrink)

In this paper, I reconstruct the development and the complex character of Zilsel’s conception of scientific laws. This concept functions as a fil rouge for understanding Zilsel’s philosophy throughout different times (here, the focus is on his Viennese writings and how they pave the way to the more renown American ones) and across his many fields of work (from physics to politics). A good decade before Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was going to mark the outbreak of indeterminism in quantum (...) physics, Edgar Zilsel started to develop a complex logical-philosophical theory in which statistical and causal laws were given an indeterministic foundation (Zilsel 1916). However, in developing his thoughts on the emergence of regularities from disorder, Zilsel arrives at a profound ambiguity with respect to the ontological or the epistemic nature of laws and order in the world: Whether this order is to be conceived of as an empirical finding or as the product of reason – this would have to remain unclear. This tension between rationalism and empiricism, as well as a tension between a realist and an anti-realist conception of lawfulness, can be identified in both Zilsel’s Viennese and American writings: a tension which touches the core of the “application problem” that would keep haunting Zilsel until his premature death. (shrink)

Aujourd’hui, bon nombre de philosophes des sciences ou d’universitaires semblent penser que leur expertise peut éclairer les débats publics. Le premier empirisme logique peut apparaître comme un modèle de philosophie des sciences politiquement pertinent. Dans ses travaux sur la « dépolitisation» de l’empirisme logique, George Reisch a aidé à prendre conscience de l’agenda politique du Cercle de Vienne, agenda qui a disparu dans les États-Unis d’après-guerre, sous la pression de l’anti-communisme. L’étude du cas d’Edgar Zilsel, un sociologue des (...) sciences membre de l’aile gauche radicale du Cercle de Vienne, montre cependant que l’empirisme logique ne peut pas être considéré aussi facilement comme politique. Certes, Zilsel était un intellectuel politiquement engagé, mais il n’était pas un philosophe des sciences politiquement engagé: son intention n’était pas d’intervenir dans les débats publics ou de soutenir des causes publiques en vertu de son statut académique ou de son expertise professionnelle. Je soutiens en outre que les débats contemporains sur la place de la science dans la société, menés par des universitaires qui, soucieux de leur impact sur les questions de société, conceptualisent l’influence sociale en termes de motifs et de valeurs individuels, ne correspondent pas au point de vue des empiristes logiques de gauche: ceux-ci cherchaient à fournir une explication sociologique de la science et s’attachaient davantage aux déterminants structuraux qu’aux motifs individuels. Ainsi, même si l’empirisme logique peut être vu comme un modèle de philosophie des sciences politiquement pertinent, il pointe, à mon sens, dans une direction différente de celle généralement prise par ses héritiers d’aujourd’hui. (shrink)

Aujourd’hui, bon nombre de philosophes des sciences ou d’universitaires semblent penser que leur expertise peut éclairer les débats publics. Le premier empirisme logique peut apparaître comme un modèle de philosophie des sciences politiquement pertinent. Dans ses travaux sur la « dépolitisation» de l’empirisme logique, George Reisch a aidé à prendre conscience de l’agenda politique (de certaines composantes) du Cercle de Vienne, agenda qui a disparu dans les États-Unis d’après-guerre, sous la pression de l’anti-communisme. L’étude du cas d’Edgar Zilsel, (...) un sociologue des sciences membre de l’aile gauche radicale du Cercle de Vienne, montre cependant que l’empirisme logique ne peut pas être considéré aussi facilement comme politique. Certes, Zilsel était un intellectuel politiquement engagé, mais il n’était pas un philosophe des sciences politiquement engagé: son intention n’était pas d’intervenir dans les débats publics ou de soutenir des causes publiques en vertu de son statut académique (il n’en avait pas) ou de son expertise professionnelle (il en avait une). Je soutiens en outre que les débats contemporains sur la place de la science dans la société, menés par des universitaires qui, soucieux de leur impact sur les questions de société, conceptualisent l’influence sociale en termes de motifs et de valeurs individuels, ne correspondent pas au point de vue des empiristes logiques de gauche: ceux-ci cherchaient à fournir une explication sociologique de la science et s’attachaient davantage aux déterminants structuraux qu’aux motifs individuels. Ainsi, même si l’empirisme logique peut être vu comme un modèle de philosophie des sciences politiquement pertinent, il pointe, à mon sens, dans une direction différente de celle généralement prise par ses héritiers d’aujourd’hui. (shrink)

The paper focuses on the concept of matter and the material in Edgar Zilsel’s considerations about historiographical methods in the context of the Marxist debates on the materialist conception of history in the 1920s and 1930s (György Lukács, Max Adler). It sheds light on Zilsel’s understanding of matter as fluctuating, interfering processes in the lapse of time and the related concept of irreversible laws and relates it to Ernst Mach’s philosophy and to Richard Semon’s theory of mneme (...) . Finally, it shows the practical consequences of the concept of materialism in Edgar Zilsel’s epistemology. (shrink)

Am Wiener Kreis scheiden sich die Geister, trat er doch mit dem dezidierten Anspruch auf, mit den Mitteln der modernen Logik den metaphysischen Schutt von Jahrtausenden aus dem Weg zu räumen. Statt einer homogenen Bewegung, die sich empiristischen Dogmen verschrieb, erscheint der Wiener Kreis in der philosophischen Forschung jedoch heute als eine heterogene Gruppe von eigenständigen Denkern, die gemeinsam die Grundlagen der modernen Wissenschaftstheorie legten. In jeweils spezifischer Weise setzten sie sich von der philosophischen Tradition ab oder versuchten, einzelne Teile (...) davon in die wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung zu integrieren. Der Band enthält eine repräsentative Auswahl von Aufsätzen der Mitglieder des Wiener Kreises. Sie beschränkt sich mit Ausnahme dreier Frühschriften der Gründer bewußt auf die Jahre des historischen Kreises vom Beginn der Treffen 1924 bis zur Ermordung Schlicks 1936, obwohl einige der Hauptideen erst in den USA ihre volle Wirkung entfalteten und von dort Ende der sechziger Jahre wieder in die deutschsprachige Philosophie zurückwirkten. In ihrer Einleitung skizzieren die Herausgeber die historische Entwicklung des Kreises und erläutern die zentralen thematischen Fragestellungen. Die Anmerkungen identifizieren die internen wie externen Opponenten und erklären den Kontext der zeitgenössischen Wissenschaft. (shrink)

Edgar Zilsel's famous thesis, which argues that modern experimental science was born from the union of artisans and intellectuals in the 16th century, received little support when Zilsel proposed it in the 1940s. In recent years, however, with the turn toward social and cultural history of science, the “Zilsel Thesis” has undergone something of a revival as historians rethink the relevance of artisanal knowledge for the history of early modern science. This essay looks at the (...) class='Hi'>Zilsel Thesis in a global setting – specifically a colonial Iberian setting – and argues for its relevance in framing natural history, medicine, and the impact of science on everyday life. Using the examples of corn, quina, and cochineal, this essay argues that the agronomic, chemical, and entomological knowledge accumulated over generations of practice by indigenous practitioners was in fact artisanal knowledge that was passed on to European intellectuals in “global trading zones” to become part of the Western scientific patrimony. (shrink)

Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach can be considered as the most influential protagonists-in-exile of the scientific philosophy that arose in the twenties and early thirties under the headings Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung and Wissenschaftliche Philosophie. Both were born in 1891 — as was a generally forgotten member of the Vienna Circle: Edgar Zilsel.

Maßgebliche Vertreter der wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung des Wiener Kreises wie Moritz Schlick, Otto Neurath oder Edgar Zilsel waren jenseits aller sonstigen Differenzen gemeinsam bemüht, gegenüber den im Gefolge der "Krise des mechanistischen Weltbüdes" (die gerade in Mitteleuropa auch eine Krise des Bürgertums überhaupt war) auftretenden Strömungen des Anti-Empüismus, Irrationalismus und Erkenntnispessimismus die Errungenschaften der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaft zu bewahren.Für die Auseinandersetzung mit der gegenwärtigen Phüosophie und Wissenschaft und üirer gesellschaftlichen Stellung wäre ein Anknüpfen an die damaligen Debatten von großer Bedeutung.

Maßgebliche Vertreter der wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung des Wiener Kreises wie Moritz Schlick, Otto Neurath oder Edgar Zilsel waren jenseits aller sonstigen Differenzen gemeinsam bemüht, gegenüber den im Gefolge der "Krise des mechanistischen Weltbüdes" auftretenden Strömungen des Anti-Empüismus, Irrationalismus und Erkenntnispessimismus die Errungenschaften der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaft zu bewahren.Für die Auseinandersetzung mit der gegenwärtigen Phüosophie und Wissenschaft und üirer gesellschaftlichen Stellung wäre ein Anknüpfen an die damaligen Debatten von großer Bedeutung.

Alan Turing is often portrayed as a materialist in secondary literature. In the present article, I suggest that Turing was instead an idealist, inspired by Cambridge scholars, Arthur Eddington, Ernest Hobson, James Jeans and John McTaggart. I outline Turing’s developing thoughts and his legacy in the USA to date. Specifically, I contrast Turing’s two notions of computability (both from 1936) and distinguish between Turing’s “machine intelligence” in the UK and the more well-known “artificial intelligence” in the USA. According to my (...) proposed historical interpretation, Turing did not view computations in the real world to be exhaustively and deterministically characterized by his automatic machines from 1936. (shrink)