At some point during the 1950s, mainstream American philosophy of science began increasingly to avoid questions about the role of non-cognitive values in science and, accordingly, increasingly to avoid active engagement with social, political and moral concerns. Such questions and engagement eventually ceased to be part of the mainstream. Here we show that the eventual dominance of 'value-free' philosophy of science can be attributed, at least in part, to the policies of the U.S. National Science Foundation's "History and Philosophy of (...) Science" sub-program. In turn, the sub-program's policies were set by logical empiricists who espoused value-free philosophy of science; these philosophers' actions, we also point out, fit a broad pattern, one in which analytic philosophers used institutional control to marginalize rival approaches to philosophy. We go on to draw on existing knowledge of this pattern to suggest two further, similar, contributors to the withdrawal from value-laden philosophy of science, namely decisions by the editors of Philosophy of Science and by the editors of The Journal of Philosophy. Political climate was, we argue, at most an indirect contributor to the withdrawal and was neither a factor that decided whether it occurred nor one that was sufficient to bring it about. Moreover, we argue that the actions at the National Science Foundation went beyond what was required by its senior administrators and are better viewed as part of what drove, rather than as what was being driven by, the adoption of logical empiricism by the philosophy of science community. (shrink)

SummaryThe paper presents a paradigmatic part of the logic of magnitudes, an invention of Descartes, different from alethic formal logic, but a proper formal logic sui generis. Descartes' logic consists of corporeal – geometrical and physical – devices that behave like deductive calculi, generating inferences of magnitudes from magnitudes. Its syntactic elements are magnitudes as corporeal entities, whose connections can be characterized by various magnitudinal connectives, distinguished from those of alethic logic. The paper presents two kinds of orthogonal and the (...) congruence connectives applying them to line segments and to physical magnitudes. It describes the value semantics and the interpretative semantics of these connections, the inference rules they take part in, states the conditions for validity and theoremhood, and compares it to model theory. It shows that one of the orthogonal connections displays the ontic and logical properties of Descartes’ideae innatae, whereas the other displays those of Descartes’ideae factae, and shows that the physical law m v =p regarded as an orthogonal connection is an idea innata. (shrink)