Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Lvov-Warsaw School Against the Reductionist Vision of Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Significance of the Lvov-Warsaw School in the European Culture

Part of the book series: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook ((VCIY,volume 21))

  • 236 Accesses

Abstract

Let us start with some purely conceptual remarks which will help to analyse the instantiations of the idea of the unity of science.

This article is a result of the project “The Significance of the Lvov-Warsaw School in European Culture” supported by the Foundation for Polish Science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This historical and thus «pragmatic» aspect of reduction is emphasized by Kemeny and Oppenheim: “The label ‘reduction’ has been applied to a certain type of progress in science. As this process has been the subject of much philosophical controversy, it is the task of the philosophers of science to give a rational reconstruction of the essential features of reduction. […] Scientific progress may broadly be divided into two types: (1) an increase in factual knowledge by an addition to the total amount of scientific observations; (2) an improvement in the body of theories, which is designed to explain the known facts and to predict the outcome of future observations. An especially important case of the second type is the replacement of an accepted theory (or body of theories) by a new theory (or body of theories) which is in some sense superior to it. Reduction is an improvement in this sense” (J. Kemeny, P. Oppenheim, “On Reduction”, in: Philosophical Studies 7, 1956, pp. 6–19; p. 6 f.). Van Riel and van Gulick add: “Whether or not a theory actually becomes the successor of another theory will depend not only on the logical and metaphysical features of the respective theories, but also on their pragmatic and epistemic aspects. The most relevant of these aspects are to be captured in a rational reconstruction, which plays a major role in some models of reduction” (R. van Riel, R. van Gulick, “Scientific reduction”, in: E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/scientific-reduction).

  2. 2.

    According to Nagel, reduction is (i) a kind of explanation relation, which (ii) holds between two theories iff (iii) one of these theories is derivable from the other (iv) with the help of bridge laws under some conditions (E. Nagel, The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 1961).

  3. 3.

    The different, and interesting, question consists in the methodological status of such a metalanguage which is a metalanguage with reference not to one object language, but to more than one object language. This question requires a special treatment, but its solution depends on the solution of the problem of unity of science.

  4. 4.

    However, members of the Circle were not the first to consider this idea. Cf. J. Cat, “The Unity of Science”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/scientific-unity.

  5. 5.

    R. Carnap, “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science”, in: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 1.Vol. 1.1938, p. 61.

  6. 6.

    R. Carnap, Intelectual Autobiography, in: P.A. Schilpp (ed.) The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 11), LaSalle: Open Court 1963, p. 34.

  7. 7.

    M. Kokoszyńska, “Filozofia nauki w Kole Wiedeńskim” [Philosophy of Science in the Vienna Circle], in: Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 13, l, 1937, pp. 151–165; 2, pp. 181–194; M. Kokoszyńska, “Bemerkungen über der Einheitswissenschaft“, in: Erkenntnis 7, 1938, pp. 325–335.

  8. 8.

    K. Ajdukiewicz, “Epistemology and Semiotics” (1948), in: K. Ajdukiewicz, The Scientific Worldperspective and Other Essays. Dordrecht, D. Reidel 1978, pp. 182–191.

  9. 9.

    M. Kokoszyńska, “Filozofia nauki w Kole Wiedeńskim”, p. 157.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 159.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., p. 162.

  12. 12.

    Ibid.

  13. 13.

    Interestingly, this argument appears in Quine’s polemics with Carnap in the 60s.

  14. 14.

    M. Kokoszyńska, “Filozofia nauki w Kole Wiedeńskim”, p. 163.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    K. Ajdukiewicz, “Epistemology and Semiotics”, p. 24.

  17. 17.

    M. Kokoszyńska, “Sur les éléments métaphysiques et empiriques dans la science”, in: Travaux du IX’ Congrès International de Philosophie, Congrès Descartes. F.4. Paris 1937, pp. 108–117; M. Kokoszyńska, “W sprawie walki z metafizyką” [On Fight Against Metaphysics], in: Przegląd Filozoficzny 41, 1938, pp. 9–24.

  18. 18.

    K. Ajdukiewicz, “O tzw. Neopozytywizmie” [On the So-Called Neopositivism] (1946), in: K. Ajdukiewicz, Język i poznanie [Language and Knowledge]. Vol. 2. Warsaw: PWN 1985, p. 27.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., p. 28.

  20. 20.

    K. Ajdukiewicz, “Metodologiczne typy nauk” [On Methodological Types of Sciences] (1938), in: K. Ajdukiewicz, Język i poznanie [Language and Knowledge]. Vol. 1. Warsaw: PWN 1985,

  21. 21.

    See T. Kotarbiński, Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk. Lvov: Ossolineum, 1929. Eng.tr. under the title: Gnosiology. New York: Pergamon Press 1966; K. Ajdukiewicz, “Reizm (Tadeusz Kotarbiński Elementy epistemologii, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk)” [Reism. Review of T. Kotarbiński’s Elements of Epistemology, Logic and Methodology of Science], in: Przegląd Filozoficzny 33, 1930, pp. 140–160.

  22. 22.

    J. Woleński, “Kierunki i metody filozofii analitycznej” [Trends and Methods of Analytical Philosophy], in: J. Perzanowski (Ed.), Jak filozofować? [How to Philosophize?] Warsaw: PWN 1989, pp. 30–77

  23. 23.

    Cf. J. Woleński, “Kierunki i metody filozofii analitycznej”; J.J. Jadacki, “Definition, Explication, and Paraphrase in Ajdukiewiczian Tradition”. In: V. Sinisi & J. Woleński (Eds.), The Heritage of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi 1995, pp. 139–152; M. Będkowski, “O tzw. metodzie parafraz K. Ajdukiewicza” [On So-Called Method of Paraphrasing by K. Ajdukiewicz] (2012), http://www.pts.edu.pl/teksty/mbpt2012.pdf. Będkowski points to the fact that the so-called method of paraphrases is not homogeneous and that different procedures are assigned to this term. Generally, I agree with this line of argumentation, however, in this paper, I characterize Ajukiewicz’s standpoint only very roughly and thus do not distinguish there different procedures sharply.

  24. 24.

    J. Łukasiewicz, “Analiza i konstrukcja pojęcia przyczyny” [Analysis and Construction of the Concept of Cause], in: Przegląd Filozoficzny 9, 1906, pp. 105–179.

  25. 25.

    J. Łukasiewicz, “Analiza i konstrukcja pojęcia przyczyny”, p. 162.

  26. 26.

    As a consequence wishes (which may be perceived as a component of resolutions/decisions) also have the same features as judgements and suppositions.

  27. 27.

    I. Szumilewicz-Lachman, Zygmunt Zawirski: His Life and Work With Selected Writings on Time, Logic and Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994.

References

  • Ajdukiewicz, K. 1930. Reizm (Tadeusz Kotarbiński Elementy epistemologii, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk) [Reism. Review of T. Kotarbiński’s Elements of Epistemology, Logic and Methodology of Science]. Przegląd Filozoficzny 33: 140–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1934. O stosowalności czystej logiki do zagadnień filozoficznych [On the Applicability of Pure Logic to Philosophical Problems]. In The Scientific Worldperspective and Other Essays, ed. K. Ajdukiewicz, 90–94. Dordrecht: D. Reidel 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1937. Problemat idealizmu transcendentalnego w sformułowaniu semantycznym [A Semantical Version of the Problem of Transcendental Idealism]. In The Scientific Worldperspective and Other Essays, ed. K. Ajdukiewicz, 140–154. Dordrecht: D. Reidel 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1938. Metodologiczne typy nauk [On Methodological Types of Sciences]. In: Język i poznanie [Language and Knowledge], vol. 1, ed. K. Ajdukiewicz, 187–313. Warsaw: PWN 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1946. O tzw. neopozytywizmie [On the So-Called Neopositivism]. In Język i poznanie [Language and Knowledge], vol. 2, ed. K. Ajdukiewicz, 8–28. Warsaw: PWN 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1948. Epistemology and Semiotics. In The Scientific Worldperspective and Other Essays, ed. K. Ajdukiewicz, Vol. 1978, 182–191. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1978. The Scientific Worldperspective and Other Essays. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. Język i poznanie [Language and Knowledge], vols. 1–2. Warszawa: PWN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Będkowski, M. 2012. O tzw. metodzie parafraz K. Ajdukiewicza [On So-Called Method of Paraphrasing by K. Ajdukiewicz]. http://www.pts.edu.pl/teksty/mbpt2012.pdf.

  • Cat, J. 2014. The Unity of Science. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/scientific-unity.

  • Carnap, R. 1934. The Unity of Science. London: Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1938. Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 1: 93–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1963. Intelectual Autobiography. In The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Library of Living Philosophers, ed. P.A. Schilpp, Vol. 11, 3–84. LaSalle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. 1986. Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadacki, J.J. 1995. Definition, Explication, and Paraphrase in Ajdukiewiczian Tradition. In The Heritage of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, ed. V. Sinisi and J. Woleński, 139–152. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J., and P. Oppenheim. 1956. On Reduction. Philosophical Studies 7: 6–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokoszyńska, M. 1937a. Filozofia nauki w Kole Wiedeńskim [Philosophy of Science in the Vienna Circle]. Kwartalnik Filozoficzny 13(l): 151–165; 2: 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1937b. Sur les éléments métaphysiques et empiriques dans la science. In Travaux du IX’ Congrès International de Philosophie. Congrès Descartes. F.4. Paris, 108–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1938a. W sprawie walki z metafizyką [On Fight Against Metaphysics]. Przegląd Filozoficzny 41: 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1938b. Bemerkungen über der Einheitswissenschaft. Erkenntnis 7: 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotarbiński, T. 1929. Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk. Lvov: Ossolineum. English translation under the title: Gnosiology. New York: Pergamon Press 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Łukasiewicz, J. 1906. Analiza i konstrukcja pojęcia przyczyny [Analysis and Construction of the Concept of Cause]. Przegląd Filozoficzny 9: 105–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, P., and H. Putnam. 1958. The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. In Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, ed. G. Maxwell, H. Feigl, and M. Scriven, 3–36. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szumilewicz-Lachman, I. 1994. Zygmunt Zawirski: His Life and Work with Selected Writings on Time, Logic and Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Riel, R., and R. van Gulick. 2014. Scientific Reduction. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/scientific-reduction.

  • Vienna Circle. 1929. Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung Der Wiener Kreis. Artur Wolf Verlag: Wien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woleński, J. 1985. Filozoficzna Szkoła Lwowsko-Warszawska. Warsaw: PWN. English version: Logic and Philosophy in the Lvov–Warsaw School. Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Reidel 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Kierunki i metody filozofii analitycznej [Trends and Methods of Analytical Philosophy]. In: Jak filozofować? [How to Philosophize?], ed. J. Perzanowski, 30–77. Warsaw: PWN.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Anna Brożek

Authors
  1. Anna Brożek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Brożek .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

    Anna Brożek

  2. Institute Vienna Circle, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Friedrich Stadler

  3. University of Information, Technology and Management, Rzeszów, Poland

    Jan Woleński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brożek, A. (2017). The Lvov-Warsaw School Against the Reductionist Vision of Science. In: Brożek, A., Stadler, F., Woleński, J. (eds) The Significance of the Lvov-Warsaw School in the European Culture. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52869-4_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation