Reichenbach’s Entanglements

  • Clark Glymour
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 132)

Abstract

Looking back, Reichenbach’s views about knowledge and meaning seem in most respects entirely typical of those of empiricists of the day. His epistemological differences with Carnap, C. I. Lewis and others seem far less significant than the agreements they shared. If Reichenbach is distinctive, it is because his epistemological concerns seem to have had their source in careful analyses of innovations in physical theory, and because his developing views were constantly buttressed with physical examples. It is this interplay of epistemological doctrine and scientific theory that makes Reichenbach’s work especially appealing, vivid and forceful. Reichenbach’s epistemological views are, by now, unpopular enough that they scarcely need criticism, and even though I will criticize them that is not my chief purpose. My purpose is to provide a perspective on the interaction of Reichenbach’s epistemological doctrines and his analyses of scientific inference, a perspective which I hope will reveal something both new and true about the problems that motivated Reichenbach’s work. It is exactly because Reichenbach’s views are in many ways typical of empiricism present and past that the enterprise is worthwhile; the points I shall make about Reichenbach could equally be made about Carnap, Lewis, or any number of contemporary writers.

Keywords

Covariance Sorting Stake 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bridgman, P., 1961, The Logic of Modern Physics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Carnap, R., 1936–37, “Testability and Meaning”, Philosophy of Science 3, 420–471; 4, 1–40.Google Scholar
  3. Glymour, C., 1971, ‘Theoretical Realism and Theoretical Equivalence’, in R. Buck et al. (eds.), PSA 1970, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Boston and Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Glymour, C., Forthcoming, ‘Physics and Evidence’, in the University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  5. Kuhn, T., 1957. The Copernican Revolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Poincare, H., 1952, Science and Hypothesis, Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Reichenbach, H.: 1920, Relativitatstheorie und Erkenntnis Apriori, Springer, Berlin. English translation, The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge, University of California Press, Berkely and Los Angeles, 1965.Google Scholar
  8. Reichenbach, H., 1938, Experience and Prediction, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Reichenbach, H., 1949, The Theory of Probability ( 2nd ed. ), University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  10. Reichenbach, H., 1958, The Philosophy of Space and Time, Dover Publications, New York. Translation of Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin und Leipzig, 1928.Google Scholar
  11. Reichenbach, H., 1959, ‘The Principle of Causality and the Possibility of Its Empirical Confirmation’, in H. Reichenbach, Modern Philosophy of Science, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1959. Translation of ‘Die Kausalbehauptung und die Moglichkeit ihrer empirischen Nachprufung’, Erkenntnis 3 (1932), 32–64.Google Scholar
  12. Reichenbach, H., 1969, Axiomatization of the Theory of Relativity, University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles. Translation of Axiomatik der relativistischen Raum -Zeit- Lehre, Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1924.Google Scholar
  13. Weyl, H., 1963, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Atheneum, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Wilson, G, 1969, ‘From Kepler’s Laws, So-called, to Universal Gravitation: Empirical Factors’, Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clark Glymour
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OklahomaUSA

Personalised recommendations