Philipp Frank: Philosophy of Science, Pragmatism, and Social Engagement

Philipp Frank––physicist, philosopher, and early member of the Vienna Circle––is often neglected in retrospective accounts of twentieth century philosophy of science, despite renewed interest in the work of the Vienna Circle. In this thesis, I argue that this neglect is unwarranted. Appealing to a variety of philosophical and historical sources, I trace the development of Frank’s philosophical thought and, in so doing highlight the roles played by history, sociology, values, and pragmatism in his philosophy of science. Turning to contemporary literature, I then argue that Frank’s work should be understood as an early instance of what is now called “socially engaged philosophy of science.” This understanding is explored through a careful consideration of his work on education, where previous work on history, sociology, values, and pragmatism is applied to an important, real-world problem. This socially engaged reading of Frank extends beyond pragmatic issues of theory application, because as I show, Frank used sociology to argue for the meaningfulness of metaphysical claims. However, Frank’s account of meaning may seem to be problematic since it heavily relies on Percy Bridgman’s operationalism. So, I outline the problems associated with Bridgman’s account of operationalism and show that Frank’s view does not fall prey to the same criticisms. After these objections are addressed, Frank’s work is contextualized in the broader debate about value-free science, where I argue that Frank did not endorse the value-free ideal. As a result of these findings, we will not only have a clearer picture of Frank’s philosophical contributions, but also a better understanding of how the philosophy of science can better engage important social issues

Philosophy of Science and Democracy. Some reflections on Philipp Frank"s "Relativity – a richer truth".

Philipp Frank"s book Relativity – a richer truth1 shows something we do not find very often after World War 2: a philosopher of science acting as a public intellectual. Taking part in the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, Philipp Frank intervened in the public debate about the causes of Nazism and how to defend democracy and liberalism against totalitarian ideas and politics. Could philosophy of science contribute to such a struggle? Philipp Frank thought it could, he even thought that Philosophy of Science should play a crucial role in it. It"s obvious that this position should be of some interest for philosophers in Austria and Europe today. Of course, any serious analysis of Frank"s position would have to take the whole historical constellation into account. Between the beginning of the conference in 1940 and the publication of the book in 1951 the historical situation had dramatically changed. And therefore one has to distinguish several political dimensions in Frank"s arguments. Let me just make a short remark on the plurality of political perspectives Frank"s discourse opened up. Philipp Frank defined the role science should play in democracy not only in contrast to the role of science as it was conceived by totalitarian governments. Of course he criticised the Nazis" and Soviets" �philosophies of science� several times (see for instance p. 73, 98, 103p.). But he also made very clear that in the 40ies and 50ies not even the majority of scholars and university teachers in the US supported the specific view of science which Frank thought was so important to the advancement of democracy (for instance 59pp.). His rather critical comments on the teaching of science in the post war / cold war period show what he thought the really important political impact of science was. As far as I can see, these comments did not loose their significance

Meaning in the Age of Modernism: C. K. Ogden and his contemporaries

This dissertation is a historical study of influential currents in the philosophy of language and linguistics of the first half of the twentieth century, explored from the perspective of the English scholar C. K. Ogden (1889–1957). Although no ‘Great Man’ in his own right, Ogden had a personal connection, reflected in his work, to several of the most significant figures of the age. The background to the ideas espoused in Ogden’s book The Meaning of Meaning, co-authored with I.A. Richards (1893–1979), is examined in detail, along with the application of these ideas in his international language project Basic English. A richly interlaced network of connections is revealed between early analytic philosophy, semiotics and linguistics, all inevitably shaped by the contemporary cultural and political environment. In particular, significant interaction is shown between Ogden’s ideas, the varying versions of ‘logical atomism’ of Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) and Ludwig Wittgensten (1889–1951), Victoria Lady Welby’s (1837–1912) ‘significs’, and the philosophy and political activism of Otto Neurath (1882–1945) and Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) of the Vienna Circle. Amid these interactions emerges a previously little known mutual exchange between the academic philosophy and linguistics of the period and the practically oriented efforts of the international language movement. In exploring these connections, novel light is shed on the intellectual history of a period crucial in the development of both linguistics and philosophy

A Political Meaning of “Scientific Philosophy”? The Case of Edgar Zilsel

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.Many scholars in the philosophy of science and the HOPOS community today appear to be keen for their expertise to be relevant to public concerns and debates. Early logical empiricism appears to provide a model of politically relevant philosophy of science. In his studies on the “depoliticization” of logical empiricism, George Reisch has rekindled wider awareness of the political agenda of (some sections of) the Vienna Circle, an agenda that faded away in the post-war US only under the pressure of anti-communist repression. In my study of the case of Edgar Zilsel, an early sociologist of science and politically radical member of the left wing of the Vienna Circle, I will show that logical empiricism cannot so easily be said to have been political. To be sure, Zilsel was a political intellectual—but he was not a political philosopher of science, i.e., his intention was not to intervene in public debate or to act in support of public causes by virtue of academic status (which he did not possess) or professional expertise (which he did). I shall argue further that contemporary debates about science in its social context conducted by scholars who are concerned about their impact on broader societal issues and who conceptualize social influence in terms of individuals’ motives and values are at odds with left-wing logical empiricism: this sought to provide a sociological account of science and focused on structural determinants rather than on individuals’ motives. Thus, even if logical empiricism could be shown to be a model of politically-relevant philosophy of science, it would point, I suggest, in a different direction to the one generally discussed by its contemporary heirs

Carnapian explication and ameliorative analysis : a systematic comparison

A distinction often drawn is one between conservative versus revisionary conceptions of philosophical analysis with respect to commonsensical beliefs and intuitions. This paper offers a comparative investigation of two revisionary methods: Carnapian explication and ameliorative analysis as developed by S. Haslanger. It is argued that they have a number of common features, and in particular that they share a crucial political dimension: they both have the potential to serve as instrument for social reform. Indeed, they may produce improved versions of key concepts of everyday life, for example those pertaining to social categories such as gender and race (among others), which in turn may lead to social change. The systematic comparison of these two frameworks offered here, where similarities as well as differences are discussed, is likely to provide useful guidance to practitioners of both approaches, as it will highlight important aspects of each of them that tend to remain implicit and under-theorized in existing applications of these methodologies to specific questions.Peer reviewe

The last post? Post-postmodernism and the linguistic u-turn

This paper adopts an autobiographical tone to review the linguistic turn and its demise at the hands Richard Rorty. Rorty, along with Continental philosophers like Lyotard rescued us from a philosophical delusion that we might achieve a neutral analysis resulting in linguistic and conceptual hygiene. This view became the basis of a highly influential doctrine in philosophy of education during the 1970s under R. S. Peters and the London school. I review the Wittgensteininspired movement and its conceptual affinities with postpositivism, postmodernism and postcoloniality as the dominating motifs of the age we have now passed beyond. © Michael A. Peters.This paper adopts an autobiographical tone to review the linguistic turn and its demise at the hands Richard Rorty. Rorty, along with Continental philosophers like Lyotard rescued us from a philosophical delusion that we might achieve a neutral analysis resulting in linguistic and conceptual hygiene. This view became the basis of a highly influential doctrine in philosophy of education during the 1970s under R. S. Peters and the London school. I review the Wittgenstein inspired movement and its conceptual affinities with postpositivism, postmodernism and postcoloniality as the dominating motifs of the age we have now passed beyond

Situating Objectivity: A Feminist Conceptualization

This dissertation focuses on the ideal of objectivity in science. My aim is to understand and situate how objectivity has been conceptualized in the philosophy of science, and to question whether these conceptualizations are consistent with the actual ways in which objectivity has been sought in scientific practice. I examine the dominant views of objectivity in mainstream philosophy of science and feminist reactions to them. Ultimately, I argue that Helen Longino’s understanding of objectivity, complemented by some aspects of Sandra Harding’s “strong objectivity”, provides a more comprehensive and practical ideal to guide scientific practice than the received view’s conception where objectivity is sought by adopting an impersonal methodology. One of the main criticisms against feminist epistemologies, which argue for the gender specificity of knowledge, is that they lead to epistemic relativism. And hence it is argued that feminist epistemologies undermine “scientific objectivity”. In arguing for the fruitfulness and consistency of a feminist account of objectivity, I examine in what ways claims about the gender specificity of knowledge could be understood without rendering the notion of objectivity redundant