This paper is an analysis of some aspects of the constitutional system of Carnap's Logische Aufbau der Welt. It considers two possible interpretations of the autopsychological basis - the elementary experiences - as this concept is used in Carnap's book. Some authors, like Michael Friedman and Moulines, see the Aufbau as a structural system whose forms are not determined by basic experiences - elementary experiences. Others, as for instance Stegmüller, say that the structures, the definitions, within the Aufbau are the (...) result of relations which can be established among those experiences. Following the arguments of these interpreters as well as Carnap's epistemological proposal, I sustain in this paper that it is necessary to think about the autopsychological basis - the elementary experiences - as determining Aufbau's structural relations. (shrink)

At present, there is a renewed interest in thoseaspects of Rudolf Carnap ''s LogischerAufbau der Welt that cannot just be reduced tothe tradition of logical positivism. There is, however,one of these aspects which seems to have beenneglected by the historical analyses of theAufbau''s background: what may be called aprogram for the mathematization of sense experience,as developed by Carnap in the most difficult partof his work, Chapter IV/A. It is the program of applying settheory and topology to the reconstruction of phenomenal (...) structures,quite independently of any other general philosophical aim.I claim that there are three forerunners of this program:Henri Poincaré''s essayPourquoi l''espace a trois dimensions, Chapter 4of Bertrand Russell ''s Our Knowledge of the ExternalWorld, and Jean Nicod''s La géométriedans le monde sensible. This article provides acomparison of these different instances of theabove-mentioned program. (shrink)

: The distinction between science and philosophy plays a central role in methodological, programmatic and institutional debates. Discussions of disciplinary identities typically focus on boundaries or else on genealogies, yielding models of demarcation and models of dynamics. Considerations of a discipline's self-image, often based on history, often plays an important role in the values, projects and practices of its members. Recent focus on the dynamics of scientific change supplements Kuhnian neat model with a role for philosophy and yields a model (...) of the evolution of philosophy of science. This view illuminates important aspects of science and itself contributes to philosophy of science. This interactive model is general yet based on exclusive attention to physics. In this paper and two sequels, I focus on the human sciences and argue that their role in the history of philosophy of science is just as important and it also involves a close involvement of the history of philosophy. The focus is on Gestalt psychology and it points to some lessons for philosophy of science. But, unlike the discussion of natural sciences, the discussion here brings out more complication than explication, and skews certain kinds of generalizations. (shrink)