Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-4jdj6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-25T10:42:36.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Science

Logical Empiricism as Scientific Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2023

Alan W. Richardson
Alan W. Richardson
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia

Summary

This Element offers a new account of the philosophical significance of logical empiricism that relies on the past forty years of literature reassessing the project. It argues that while logical empiricism was committed to empiricism and did become tied to the trajectory of analytic philosophy, neither empiricism nor logical analysis per se was the deepest philosophical commitment of logical empiricism. That commitment was, rather, securing the scientific status of philosophy, bringing philosophy into a scientific conception of the world.
Get access

Keywords

analytic philosophyempiricismhistory of philosophy of sciencelogical empiricismscientific philosophy

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science
Online ISBN: 9781009471497
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 18 January 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bergson, H. [1903] 1999. Introduction to Metaphysics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Black, M. 1950. Introduction. In Black, M. (ed.), Philosophical Analysis, pp. 1–13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Blumberg, A. E. and Feigl, H.. 1931. Logical Positivism. Journal of Philosophy 28(11): 281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. 2015. Politicizing Science: Conceptions of Politics in Science and Technology Studies. Social Studies of Science 45(1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brun, G. 2016. Explication As a Method of Conceptual Re-engineering. Erkenntnis 81(6): 1211–1241.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. 2018. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. [1922] 2019b. Space: A Contribution to the Theory of Science. In Carus, P. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S. (eds.), The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings, pp. 21–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1923] 2019a. On the Task of Physics and the Application of the Principle of Maximal Simplicity. In Carus, P. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S. (eds.), The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings, pp. 209–241. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1928] 1961a. The Logical Structure of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1928] 1961b. Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. In Carnap, R., The Logical Structure of the World, pp. 300–343. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1934] 1937. The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1935. Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1936/1937. Testability and Meaning. Philosophy of Science 3(4): 419–471; 4(1): 1–40.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. [1950] 1956a. Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. In Carnap, R., Meaning and Necessity. 2nd ed., pp. 205–221. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1956b. Meaning and Necessity. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1963. Replies and Systematic Expositions. In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, pp. 859–1013. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, L., and Uebel, T. E.. 1996. Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carus, A. W. 2007. Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carus, A. W. 2016. Carnap and Phenomenology: What Happened in 1924? In Damböck, C. (ed.), Influences on the Aufbau, pp. 137–162. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Carus, P. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S. (eds.). 2019. The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. 1910. Substanzbegriff und Functionsbegriff. Berlin: B. Cassirer.Google Scholar
Cat, J. 2019. Neurath and the Legacy of Algebraic Logic. In Cat, J. and Tuboly, A. (eds.), Neurath Reconsidered, pp. 241–337. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Cat, J. and Tuboly, A. (eds.). 2019. Neurath Reconsidered. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Creath, R. 1990. The Unimportance of Semantics. Philosophy of Science Association (1990): 405–416.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (ed.). 1991. Dear Carnap, Dear Van. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Damböck, C., Sander, G., and Werner, M. (eds.). 2021. Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ducasse, C. J. 1941. Philosophy As a Science. New York: Oskar Piest.Google Scholar
Dutilh Novaes, C. 2020. Carnap Meets Foucault: Conceptual Engineering and Genealogical Investigations. Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1860122.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D. 2020. The Murder of Professor Schlick. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. 1981. Inquiries and Provocations. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feigl, Herbert, and Sellars, Wilfrid (eds.). 1949. Readings in Philosophical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Frank, P. [1946] 1955. Foundations of Physics. In Neurath, O., Carnap, R., and Morris, C. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Volume 1, pp. 423–504. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frank, P. 1951. Modern Science and Its Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1884] 1960. Foundations of Arithmetic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. [1893] 1997. Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Volume One. Excerpts in Beaney, M. (ed.), The Frege Reader, pp. 194–223. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. T. and Luft, S. (eds.). 2015. The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1983. Foundations of Space-Time Theories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1999. Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 2000a. A Parting of the Ways. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 2000b. Hempel and the Vienna Circle. In Fetzer, J. H. (ed.), Science, Explanation, and Rationality, pp. 39–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frost-Arnold, G. 2013. Carnap, Tarski, and Quine at Harvard: Conversations on Logic, Mathematics, and Science. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1996. Constructing Modernism: The Cultural Location of Aufbau. In Giere, R. N. and Richardson, A. (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism, pp. 17–44. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Haller, R. 1993. Neupositivismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Harris, E. E. 1952. Scientific Philosophy. Philosophical Quarterly 2(7): 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M. [1925] 1985. History of the Concept of Time. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. [1927] 1982. Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. [1928/1929] 1996. Einleitung in die Philosophie. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. [1929] 1977. What Is Metaphysics? In Heidegger, M., Basic Writings, pp. 95–112. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Heis, J. 2010. “Critical Philosophy Begins at the Very Point Where Logistic Leaves Off”: Cassirer’s Response to Frege and Russell. Perspectives on Science 18(4): 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Sidney. 1930. A Personal Impression of Contemporary German Philosophy. Journal of Philosophy 27(6): 141–160.Google Scholar
Howard, D. 2003. Two Left Turns Make a Right: On the Curious Political Career of North American Philosophy of Science at Midcentury. In Hardcastle, G. L. and Richardson, A. (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America, pp. 25–93. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.Google Scholar
Howard, D. 2010. “Let Me Briefly Indicate Why I Do Not Find This Standpoint Natural”: Einstein, General Relativity, and the Contingent a Priori. In Domski, M. and Dickson, M. (eds.), Discourse on a New Method, pp. 333–355. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. [1911] 1965. Philosophy As Rigorous Science. In Husserl, E., Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, pp. 71–147. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Isaac, M. G., Koch, S., and Nedft, R.. 2022. Conceptual Engineering: A Roadmap to Practice. Philosophy Compass 17(10): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joergensen, J. 1951. The Development of Logical Empiricism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matherne, S. 2021. Cassirer. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. [1942] 1973. The Normative Structure of Science. In Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science, pp. 267–278. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Milkov, N. 2013. Carl Hempel: Whose Philosopher? In Milkov, N. and Peckhaus, V. (eds.), The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism, pp. 293–308. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Milkov, N. and Peckhaus, V. (eds.). 2013. The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Morris, C. 1935. Science of Philosophy and Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science 2(3): 271–286.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1936. Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe. I. Journal of Philosophy 33(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Nemeth, E. 1981. Otto Neurath und der Wiener Kreis. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. [1938] 1955. Unified Science As Encyclopedic Integration. In Neurath, O., Carnap, R., and Morris, C. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Volume 1, pp. 1–27. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. 1983. Philosophical Papers, 1913–1946. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, O, Carnap, R., and Hahn, H.. [1929] 2012. Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis. Reprint and translation ed. Stadler, F. and Uebel, T. E. (eds.). Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Padovani, F. 2011. Relativizing the Relativized a Priori: Reichenbach’s Axioms of Coordination Divided. Synthese 181(1): 41–62.Google Scholar
Padovani, F. 2021. Hans Reichenbach and the Freistudentenschaft: School Reform, Pedagogy, and Freedom. In Damböck, C. et al. (eds.), Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement, pp. 81–103. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Passmore, J. 1957. A Hundred Years of Philosophy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. [1902] 2017. Science and Hypothesis. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. [1963] 2002. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. A. 1978. UCLA, 1951–53. In Reichenbach, H., Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume One, pp. 61–64. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1951. Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review 60(1): 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1963. Carnap and Logical Truth. In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, pp. 385–406. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1969. Epistemology Naturalized. In Quine, W. V., Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, pp. 69–90. New York. Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1981. Five Milestones of Empiricism. In Quine, W. V., Theories and Things, pp. 67–72. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Belknap.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. [1913] 1978. The Free Student Idea: Its Unified Contents. In Richenbach, H., Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume One, pp. 108–123. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. [1916] 2008. The Concept of Probability in the Mathematical Representation of Reality. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. [1920] 1965. The Theory of Relativity and a Priori Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. [1928] 1958. The Philosophy of Space and Time. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. [1929] 1978. New Approaches in Science: Philosophical Research. In Reichenbach, H., Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume One, pp. 249–253. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. [1930] 1978. The Philosophical Significance of Modern Physics. In Reichenbach, H., Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume One, pp. 304–323. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1936. Logistic Empiricism and the Current State of Its Problems. Journal of Philosophy 33(6): 141–160.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1951. The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1978. Selected Writings, 1909–1953, Volume One. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 1997. Toward a History of Scientific Philosophy. Perspectives on Science 5(3): 418–451.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 1998. Carnap’s Construction of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2013. Taking the Measure of Carnap’s Philosophical Engineering: Metalogic As Metrology. In Reck, E. (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy, pp. 60–77. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2016. Cassirer’s Substance Concept and Functional Concept. In Schliesser, E. (ed.), Ten Neglected Classics of Philosophy, pp. 177–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2017. “Neither a Confession nor an Accusation”: Michael Polanyi, Hans Reichenbach, and Philosophical Modernity after World War One. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 47 (2017): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. 2021. Hans Reichenbach, Radio Philosopher. Synthese 199(5/6): 12625–12641.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. 2009a. The Left Vienna Circle, Part 1. Carnap, Neurath, and the Left Vienna Circle Thesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40(1): 14–24.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. 2009b. The Left Vienna Circle, Part 2. The Left Vienna Circle, Disciplinary History, and Feminist Philosophy of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40(2): 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringer, F. 1969. The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Romizi, D. 2012. The Vienna Circle’s “Scientific World-Conception”: Philosophy of Science in the Political Arena. HOPOS: Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2(2): 205–242.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. [1914] 1993. Our Knowledge of the External World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ryckman, T. 2005. The Reign of Relativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryckman, T. 2008. Carnap and Husserl. In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, pp. 81–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S. 2003. Husserl’s Role in Carnap’s Der Raum. In Bonk, T. (ed.), Language, Truth, and Knowledge, pp. 179–190. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Scheler, M. [1913] 2018. Versuche einer Philosophie des Lebens. Munich: Albunea.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. [1918/1925] 1974. General Theory of Knowledge. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. [1919] 1963. Space and Time in Contemporary Physics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. [1930] 1959. The Turning Point in Philosophy. In Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 53–59. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2018. The Analytic Tradition in Philosophy, Volume 2: A New Vision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spengler, O. [1918/1922] 1991.The Decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stadler, F. 2015. The Vienna Circle. 2nd ed. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Stone, A. 2006. Heidegger and Carnap on the Overcoming of Metaphysics. In Mulhall, S. (ed.), Martin Heidegger, pp. 217–244. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stroll, A. 2001. Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. 2004. Education, Enlightenment, and Positivism: The Vienna Circle’s Scientific World-Conception Revisited. Science & Education 13(1/2): 41–66.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. 2005. Political Philosophy of Science in Logical Empiricism: The Left Vienna Circle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36(4): 754–773.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. 2010. What’s Right about Carnap, Neurath and the Left Vienna Circle Thesis: A Refutation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41(2): 214–221.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. 2012. On the Production History and Early Reception of The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle. In Neurath, O. et al., Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis. Reprint and translation ed. Stadler, F. and Uebel, T. E. (eds.), pp. 291–314. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. 2015. Empiricism at the Crossroads. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. E. 2020. Intersubjective Accountability: Politics and Philosophy in the Left Vienna Circle. Perspectives on Science 28(1): 35–62.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, S. 2020. The American Reception of Logical Positivism: First Encounters (1929–1932). HOPOS: Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 10(1): 106–142.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. [1921] 2001. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Logical Empiricism as Scientific Philosophy
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Logical Empiricism as Scientific Philosophy
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Logical Empiricism as Scientific Philosophy
Available formats
×