Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science / 
Société canadienne d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences

Annual Meeting / Congrès annuel 
Université Laval, Québec, 24-26 mai / May, 2001


Home / Présentation

Program / Programme 

Registration / Inscription

Committee / Comité

 

Steed, Sheldon (University of British Columbia)
Otto Neurath : Bridging Quine and Carnap in 
the Analytical Debate

Otto Neurath, a Vienna Circle colleague of Rudolph Carnap, bears an interesting relation to the Carnap-Quine debate over analyticity because he was both a naturalist and a logical empiricist. By identifying his likeness to Quine and affiliation with Carnap, one can clarify some differences between the former’s naturalism and the latter’s logical empiricist approach to philosophical inquiry. And perhaps even more importantly, Neurath’s intellectual position affords one the means to show how Quine’s and Carnap’s projects might be more subtly linked. Indeed, and this marks the thesis of the present paper, Quine’s naturalism loses steam as a critique of logical empiricism in light of Neurath’s work, which asserts that clarifying what we say about the world through the logical analysis of language introduces naturalistic concerns about the psychology of inquirers. Neurath argues that one important accomplishment of the philosophical approach that was to become logical empiricism is to articulate the limits of reason. Beyond those limits he concludes that our path of inquiry must ultimately rely upon a decision, the details of which can be informed by an understanding of the psychology of inquirers making that decision. Thus, in Neurath, one sees naturalism not as a refutation, but rather finds its germination in the clarification project within logical empiricism.

I do not aim in this paper to suggest a compatibility between Quinean naturalism and Carnapian formalism: the differences in their projects are well established. However, by considering Neurath’s philosophical position as he articulated it in the 1910’s, I hope to draw more subtle connections between Quine and Carnap that would discourage a view of their ambitions as necessarily opposed (and the consequent assumption that Quine overcame logical empiricism). It has been argued that the root of their disagreement derived from a genuine lack of engagement over what was to count as an argument for or against analyticity – and more generally what even constituted a philosophical question. Examining the debate in light of Neurath’s position highlights precisely in what respects they differed in their expectations of the role of philosophy. It may also contribute to a clearer understanding of what we would like philosophy to be today.