I argue that Gilles-Gaston Granger (1920–2016) broadly incorporates the central affirmations of Jean Cavaillès’s (1903–44) philosophy of the concept into his own epistemological program. Cavaillès and Granger share three interrelated epistemological commitments: they claim (1) that mathematics has its own content and is therefore autonomous from and irreducible to logic, (2) that conceptual transformations in the history of mathematics can only be explained by an internal dialectic of concepts, and (3) that the objectivity of mathematics is an effect of the (...) productive form of its rationality—that is, they claim that mathematical objectivity is the result of a generative process internal to mathematics. Mathematical objectivity, as I demonstrate, requires Cavaillès and Granger to modify the limits of epistemological critique as envisioned by Kant. For Cavaillès, this modification requires the elimination of the transcendental in favor of a dialectic of concepts. For Granger, the philosophy of the concept remains a genre of transcendental critique, but in a radically revised “Ptolemaic” style. I initially demonstrate how Granger extracts each of these claims from Cavaillès. I then follow Granger as he develops these claims in the service of a novel description of the content and structure of mathematical objectivity. (shrink)

Wilfred Sellars appears in Bas C. van Fraassen’s The Scientific Image as one of van Fraassen’s primary realist opponents. However, little attention has been paid to Sellars’s influence on van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism and van Fraassen’s criticisms of Sellarsian realism, despite the significant impact of The Scientific Image on the realism debate and recent renewed interest in Sellars’s scientific realism. In the first half of this article, I argue that reading The Scientific Image against a Sellarsian background helps clarify and (...) justify van Fraassen’s controversial characterization of scientific realism. Sellars and van Fraassen each inhabit a recognizable position in the other’s description of the realism debate and can reciprocally recognize the other as inhabiting the opposing position. The second half of this article reconstructs van Fraassen’s objections to Sellarsian realism in The Scientific Image and its precursors. I argue that van Fraassen’s criticisms of Sellarsian realism significantly developed between his 1975 paper, “Wilfrid Sellars on Scientific Realism” and his 1980 book. (shrink)

This paper recovers an important, century-old debate regarding the methodological and metaphysical foundations of dimensional analysis. Consideration of Richard Tolman's failed attempt to install the principle of similitude---the relativity of size---as the founding principle of dimensional analysis both clarifies the method of dimensional analysis and articulates two metaphysical positions regarding quantity dimensions. Tolman's position is quantity dimension fundamentalism. This is a commitment to dimensional realism and a set of fundamental dimensions which ground all further dimensions. The opposing position, developed primarily (...) by Bridgman, is quantity dimension conventionalism. Conventionalism is an anti-realism regarding dimensional structure, holding our non-representational dimensional systems have basic quantity dimensions fixed only by convention. This metaphysical dispute was left somewhat unsettled. It is shown here that both of these positions face serious problems: fundamentalists are committed to surplus dimensional structure; conventionalists cannot account for empirical constraints on our dimensional systems nor the empirical success of dimensional analysis. It is shown that an alternative position is available which saves what is right in both: quantity dimension functionalism. (shrink)

Reminiscing about the death of logical empiricism after prolonged attacks, Frederick Suppe concludes, “Suddenly we knew the war had been won, and the Symposium became an energized exploration of where to go now.” It is a similar feeling, but in logical empiricism’s favor and without the bloodshed, that I get from Thomas Uebel and Christoph Limbeck-Lilienau’s The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism. The historical entries present logical empiricism as a rich resource to be explored, and the entries on the theses (...) of logical empiricism treat them as topics of current interest, with most of the latter decidedly upbeat about logical empiricism’s contribution and promise. Some entries are still presented as corrections of popular misconceptions about logical empiricism, but the majority can simply present their topic, often based on decades of research. (shrink)

Herbert G. Bohnert (1918–84) was a student and lifelong friend of Carnap. He wrote a doctoral thesis on Ramsey sentences and, after wavering between academia and the computer industry, eventually taught at Michigan State University. Bohnert defended Carnapian positions throughout his career and was especially productive in the 1970s. Unfortunately, Carnap’s philosophy was deemed hopelessly out of date during this period, and partly for this reason, Bohnert is almost completely forgotten today. This fate is undeserved. In this article, I reconstruct (...) his career and philosophical development by drawing on publications, as well as diary entries and private correspondence. I then argue that Carnap scholarship would benefit from closer attention to Bohnert’s writings. I support this claim by means of a case study from the philosophy of mathematics: Bohnert’s account of a conversation about set theory with Carnap in 1968 sheds new light on the contested question of whether Carnap held mathematics to be analytic in natural language. (shrink)

In her 1921 book, The Space-Time Problem in Kant and Einstein, Ilse Schneider examines the foundations and consequences of the theory of relativity from an epistemological perspective. Beyond addressing detailed questions of early 1920s physics, it is a programmatic attempt to reconcile Kant’s transcendental idealism with Albert Einstein’s physics. The Kantian background puts the book in direct competition with Ernst Cassirer’s book Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, published in the same year. Schneider’s approach was largely ignored in the research compared with (...) Cassirer’s. What has not been considered so far is that Schneider and Cassirer represent two different interpretations of Kant, which they apply to Einstein’s physics. Recent Kant scholarship has differentiated these interpretations into the “metaphysical” and “epistemological dual-aspect” views. The former view can be found in the work of Schneider’s academic supervisor, Alois Riehl, and clearly distinguishes Schneider’s realist-inspired approach from Cassirer’s idealism. Given these differing views, it is necessary to be more precise when speaking of “immunization strategies” in the context of neo-Kantianism in order to make the differences between Schneider and Cassirer clear. Cassirer immunizes philosophy from the results of physics. In contrast, Schneider exposes philosophy much more strongly to physics. (shrink)

Pierre Duhem’s 1905 essay “Physics of a Believer” is generally read as proposing a neat separation between metaphysics and physics as two fields that have little to nothing in common: some things will be the subject of metaphysics and some of physics, but nothing will fall under the purview of both. In this article, I advance a more nuanced interpretation of Duhem’s understanding of the differences between physics and metaphysics by drawing on his notion of “common sense” and highlighting the (...) historical (particularly Aristotelian) influences at work in Duhem’s thought on this question. I argue that Duhem’s own distinction between physics and metaphysics is subtler than the received view, framing metaphysics and physics as two distinctive fields of inquiry that nonetheless both begin from sensed phenomena and common-sense principles that are eminently certain but characteristically imprecise. (shrink)

Although Hegel is generally not known as a philosopher of mathematics, he maintained a deep interest in the history of mathematics, especially in its transformations between antiquity and the modern age. Charles S. Peirce, who was the son of a distinguished mathematician and was involved in developments in mathematics in the second half of the nineteenth century, was critical of what he perceived as Hegel’s lack of mathematical acumen. Nevertheless, he recognized in Hegel’s Science of Logic structural features of his (...) own mathematically informed philosophy. In this article, I look to Hegel’s discussion of magnitude in The Science of Logic, and especially to his conception of the relation between continuous and discrete magnitudes, in order to articulate a solution he might have offered to difficulties encountered by Peirce in his opposition to Cantor’s set-theoretical analysis of the continuum. It is argued that Hegel’s interest in the ancient Platonic/Pythagorean tradition in mathematics provided him with crucial resources in this regard. (shrink)

In this article, I aim to show the substantial ways in which Edgar Zilsel can be considered to have been a politically engaged philosopher of science and provide a reconstruction of his philosophical work in the time before his forced emigration to the United States. In line with Monika Wulz and with my own reconstruction of the Vienna Circle’s political engagement, I reject Oliver Schlaudt’s 2018 thesis according to which Zilsel cannot be considered a politically engaged philosopher of science. My (...) reconstruction of Zilsel’s political engagement as a philosopher of science is based on his German-language writings (1916–32). I reconstruct Zilsel’s early philosophy of science insofar as it is relevant to his political commitment and show how Zilsel drew on his epistemological concept of “rationalization” to engage in public debate. I deal with Zilsel’s Marxism and his work as a teacher and scholar in the context of “Red Vienna.” In light of this evidence, I conclude that any conception of “politically engaged philosopher of science” that implies Zilsel was not entails an unreasonable conclusion and must, therefore, be reconsidered. (shrink)

In this article, I discuss the relationship between Karl Popper’s conception of critical rationalism and William Bartley’s conception of pancritical rationalism. Both Popper and Bartley tended to identify rationality with openness to criticism, but they are usually considered to be disagreeing about whether rationality is limited or comprehensive and whether or not it applies to moral attitudes. These traditional interpretations are found wanting, and I make the case that there is—and was—no genuine, substantial conflict between Popper’s critical and Bartley’s pancritical (...) rationalism. The apparent disagreement between Popper and Bartley about critical versus pancritical rationalism is nothing but a tangle of several factors, including the misconstrual of Popper’s critical rationalism by Bartley, Popper’s disagreement with Bartley’s criticism of critical rationalism, Popper’s disagreement with Bartley’s claim that his formulation is superior to Popper’s formulation of critical rationalism in The Open Society and Its Enemies, and the clash of Bartley’s ambitions with Popper’s rather cold attitude toward his cherished ideas. New (so far unpublished and not discussed) archival material—Popper’s interview and two letters to Leslie Graves dated 1992—is invoked to provide crucial evidence for this interpretation. (shrink)

Margaret Macdonald was at the institutional heart of analytic philosophy in Britain in the mid-twentieth century. However, her views on the nature of philosophical theories diverge quite considerably from those of many of her contemporaries. In this article, I focus on Macdonald’s provocative 1953 paper, “Linguistic Philosophy and Perception,” in which she argues that the value of philosophical theories is more akin to that of poetry or art than science or mathematics. I do so for two reasons. First, it reveals (...) just how far Macdonald’s metaphilosophical views diverged from those of many of her contemporaries. Second, the discussion in her article preempts recent literature on the nature of philosophical inquiry and the efficacy of philosophical arguments. Indeed, Macdonald’s paper is just as likely to provoke discussion today as it was in the 1950s. (shrink)

In this article, I discuss Otto Neurath’s philosophy in the context of Vienna Circle modernism. Following recent scholarship, the discussion considers as a starting point Neurath’s participation at the fourth International Congress of Modern Architecture (CIAM IV). However, the image of Neurath’s modernism that results from this perspective is incomplete because it tends to overlook the importance of scientific utopianism in Neurath’s thought. Scientific utopianism is a methodology proposed by Neurath for the social sciences in technological contexts, in which scientists (...) elaborate and develop plans (utopias) for the transformation of society, thus contributing to an informed societal debate. Decisions are nevertheless kept outside the domain of scientific activity. I claim that recognizing the centrality of scientific utopianism in Neurath’s philosophy is fundamental to understand Neurath’s modernism. This interpretation highlights the affinities of Neurath’s philosophy of the social sciences with the modern utopianism of H. G. Wells. Both authors consider that there can be no ultimate solution to social problems but that a plural and constant debate of proposals is fundamental for the improvement of society. Therefore, Neurath’s modernism connects his philosophy of science to the literary utopian tradition. (shrink)

Conceptual engineering wants analytic philosophy to be centered around the assessment and improvement of philosophical concepts. But contemporary debates about conceptual engineering do not engage much with the vast literature on conceptual change that exists in philosophy of science. In this article, I argue that an adequate appreciation of the history of philosophy of science can contribute to discussions about conceptual engineering. Specifically, I show that the evolution of debates over scientific conceptual change arguably demonstrates that, contrary to what is (...) commonly assumed in the literature about conceptual engineering, conceptual change is possible within an externalist metasemantics and that any adequate theory of conceptual change should be metasemantically plastic. (shrink)

In this article, I focus on Johann Nikolaus Tetens’s linguistic theory to make three arguments: (a) this linguistic theory endorses a phonological (contra phonetic) approach to the acoustic sphere of language; (b) the phonological approach is based on the idea that sounds can turn into phonemes (of a properly human language) only when a minimally rational reflection on them is made; and (c) the phonological approach allows us to understand the phoneme as a differential unity, as being composed of structure (...) and function, and as giving a theoretical basis for language learning. (shrink)

Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar made use of Gaston Bachelard’s concept of phenomenotechnique in Laboratory Life. Stating that this use of a Bachelardian concept contrasts with the sharp criticism Latour made of Bachelard in his later work, I consider whether it belongs to an early Bachelardian stage of Latour’s study of science or whether Latour and Woolgar made, from the beginning, an original and anti-Bachelardian use of the concept of phenomenotechnique. I address this question by offering two symmetrical readings of (...) Laboratory Life: one reading adopts a Bachelardian perspective, in which Latour and Woolgar’s ethnological and sociological investigation appears as an empirical corroboration of Bachelard’s epistemological theses, whereas the other reading insists on the way in which Latour and Woolgar depart from Bachelard, as the sociological study of the way in which power relations shape scientific practice challenges the latter’s rationalist convictions. Although I contrast Bachelard’s epistemological use of the concept of phenomenotechnique with Latour and Woolgar’s sociological one, I wonder in the conclusion whether these approaches to science may be regarded as complements rather than antagonists and find in Pierre Bourdieu’s theses on the specificity of the scientific field resources to combine them. (shrink)

Famously, in the essay Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality (Prize Essay), Kant attempts to distance himself from the Wolffian model of philosophical inquiry. In this respect, Kant scholars have pointed out Kant’s claim that philosophy should not imitate the method of mathematics and his appeal to Newton’s “analytic method.” In this article, I argue that there is an aspect of Kant’s critique of the Wolffian model that has been neglected. Kant presents a powerful (...) attack of the idea that philosophy should proceed through the analysis of concepts and argues that we should give up the aim of arriving at “complete” concepts as one of its fundamental desiderata. Importantly, this attack of philosophy conceived as conceptual analysis is distinctive and original if one compares it with Kant’s critique of analysis in the Critique of Pure Reason, which rests on the idea that analysis is insufficient to ground substantial metaphysical truths. I also make an additional point: Scholars have debated whether the appeal to Newton’s analytic method involves a form of empiricism. I submit that this debate is ill-conceived because Kant uses a notion of “given concepts” that is indeterminate with respect to their a priori or a posteriori status. (shrink)

Even after Willard Quine’s critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Wilfrid Sellars maintained some forms of analyticity or truth in virtue of meaning. In this article, I aim to reconstruct (a) his neglected account of the analytic-synthetic distinction and the revisability of analytic sentences, (b) its connection to his inferentialist account of meaning, and (c) his response to Quine. While Sellars’s account of the revisability of analytic sentences bears certain similarities to Carnap’s and Grice and Strawson’s (...) accounts, it is still striking in that it is part of his broader picture of how our language develops dynamically in our ongoing inquiry. I aim to show how it relates to his account of how the diachronic continuity in meaning, language, or conceptual framework can be preserved through a revision of analytic sentences and to his evolutionary account of the development of our language or conceptual framework. (shrink)

In this article, I address the epistemological role that geometry plays in Kepler’s Harmonices Mundi Libri V and argue that the framework he develops there is meant to address concerns regarding the confirmation of astronomical hypotheses, which are supported by comments in earlier works regarding empirical underdetermination. The geometrical epistemology that he constructs to combat these concerns in the Harmonices Mundi is introduced in Book I and then is extended to his theory of harmonic proportion in Book III, finally providing (...) the foundation for his derivation of the planetary motions in Book V. To argue for these claims, I begin by discussing Kepler’s concern with underdetermination in earlier works. Then I turn to the Harmonices Mundi and argue that Kepler seeks to provide a geometrical system that directly links the theorist with the world. Finally, I show how he applies this system to his astronomy via his harmonic theory. This account not only helps us to understand Kepler’s scientific methodology better but also sheds light on Kepler’s enthusiasm for the results of the Harmonices Mundi by showing how they provide an example of the successful application of his geometrical epistemology. (shrink)

By focusing on the nineteenth-century debate between William Whewell and Augustus De Morgan on the nature and scope of scientific method and induction, this article captures an important episode in the history of Baconianism. More specifically, it sheds new light on the social and intellectual construction of Francis Bacon as an emblem of modern science and on British Baconianism as part of the creation of a vision of the modern enterprise. A critic of Whewell’s renovated Baconianism and an advocate of (...) an alternative anti-Baconian (or pro-Newtonian) view of science, De Morgan is presented for the first time as a philosopher of science (or metascientist), one who pioneered the application of probability theory to scientific reasoning. (shrink)

A supplement to "Metaphysics and Convention in Dimensional Analysis, 1914-1917" in HOPOS. Includes a transcription of the correspondence along with an editorial introduction and expository notes.