Neurath on the surface 8 Sep 2009 Charles Wolfe pointed me at a comment of Otto Neurath’s: The scientific world conception is characterised not so much by theses of its own, but rather by its basic attitude, its points of view and direction of research. The goal ahead is unified science. The endeavour is to link and harmonise the achievements of individual investigators in their various fields of science. From this aim follows the emphasis on collective efforts, and also the emphasis on what can be grasped intersubjectively; from this springs the search for a neutral system of formulae, for a symbolism free from the slag of historical languages; and also the search for a total system of concepts. Neatness and clarity are striven for, and dark distances and unfathomable depths rejected. In science there are no ‘depths’; there is surface everywhere: all experience forms a complex network, which cannot always be surveyed and can often be grasped only in parts. Everything is accessible to man; and man is the measure of all things. Here is an affinity with the Sophists, not with the Platonists; with the Epicureans, not with the Pythagoreans; with all those who stand for earthly being here and now. The scientific world-picture knows no unsolvable riddle. [“The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle” in Otto Neurath, Empiricism and sociology edited by Marie Neurath, Robert Sonné Cohen, p305f. Emphasis added.] They don’t teach you to write like that any more. Neurath is remembered mainly for his metaphor of the boat but he was much wider in his scope than that. Apart from anything else, all those little icons you seen on signs and maps were invented by him. He called them “isotypes”. In the light of modern views of “structural realism“, Neurath’s slogan has renewed vigor. Philosophy Science
Philosophy Defining religion 27 Oct 2009 In line with my putting passing thoughts down as they occur to me, in this post I will discuss some of the questions regarding how to define religion such that it becomes an explicandum for natural accounts of religion. Read More
Epistemology Metaphysical determinism 20 May 201227 Aug 2012 There is a hypothesis called the Sapir-Whorf Thesis (also known as linguistic relativity) in language that one can only think what one’s language permits you to think, and indeed forces you to think. This idea that some conceptual scheme can determine how you think is widely held. It appears again… Read More
Philosophy Warning: Dawkins leads to agnosticism 9 Jun 2010 It was during this time that you chaired an event for Richard Dawkins and, as a result, shifted your views from atheism to agnosticism. Why the conversion? The event sold out very quickly. The people were huge fans of Dawkins, and being amongst a group of card-carrying atheists was something… Read More
It seems to me that the call for harmony in science has existed as long as science has rather like the perennial complaints about ‘the youth of today’. What we’re desperate for at the moment is another evolution, plate tectonics or quantum theory: another unifying theory to help us understand the brain sciences and social sciences. I’m not sure if such a theory is likely though; I’m even less sure if attempts to integrate different subjects will have the desired effect. P.S. Really like the blog; it’s my first day as a subsciber so I look forward to more interesting posts.
Neurath is far and away my favorite member of the Vienna Circle; one finds his unacknowledged influence in a great many places, and usually for the better.
You are of course aware that it was Neurath who …”was the driving force behind the Unity of Science movement and the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, …”in which Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was published thus making him God Father to the “P” word!
Maybe with the renewed interest in Neurath someone can put out some new translations, commentaries, collections, etc… or at least the libraries in my collegiate community could pick up some new copies of his old stuff. Definitely an underrated philosopher.
In science there are no ‘depths’; there is surface everywhere: I still wonder about the origin of the phrase, “there is no deep reality”. I used to think it was Bohr, but I’m not sure anymore.
I agree with Neurath’s that science is an essentially collective operation, but I don’t think he goes quite far enough. He represents it as fundamentally something that humans do—hence his nod to the sophists—but it seems to me that the power and success of the sciences arises from the way in which they incorporate the things themselves in the process. It isn’t unreasonable to ask of the sciences “how does a community of highly educated people know?” but that isn’t the only reasonable question. The question “how can I know?” is also reasonable. One also needs the perspective that finally does justice to the real lab rats, the ones with paws and whiskers, and gets beyond the vanity and mere error of humanism. Allegorical version of the same point, phrased for old philosophy profs: Neurath claimed that Hegel was wrong to think that the realm of the philosopher, Absolute Spirit, was the culmination and justification of Objective Spirit, the realm of social institutions, including, crucially, the sciences. For Neurath the best you can get is always just Objective Spirit—the understanding of the world possessed or practiced by professional scientists. Now I come along and point out that the Neurathian formula simply replaces the individual philosopher with “man” or some set of men as the subject/hero of the tale when the real source of the trouble is the tale itself or, to be excruciatingly scrupulous, taking the tale too seriously.
The scientific world-picture knows no unsolvable riddle. Q: What is the precise location and speed of a given subatomic particle? I love Neurath, too, but this quote is instructive. We should be suspicious of universal claims about what science is and is not, about what it does and does not accept.
And surfaces are fine, if you stay in the boat. But the fishes know very well that there are depths the sailors haven’t imagined in their philosphy.
“there are no depths” has at least two meanings: 1) science is a universe with one inhabitant, which endured by surviving Darwinian-like struggles. or, which is not the same, 2)all world views are juxtaposed side by side with no hierarchy; i.e., in Kuhnian incommensurable bubbles. Neurath probably pointed at the first possibility. he couldn’t accept that a positivist world view that led to a “progressive” industrial society, will be valued the same as a mythological world view that led to, so called, “primitive” societies (Australian aboriginal people, for instance) that lay defeated at the side ways where “progress” marched. But i do accept it, and think that there is no good and bad knowledge. there are only good or bad views; the bad ones enforce with the help of the gun and the sword scientific progress upon all the others in order advance their “maturity”. the imperative is: develop or die.