This paper examines what constitute the virtues of argumentation or critical thinking and how these virtues might be developed. We argue first that the notion of virtue is more appropriate for characterizing this aspect than the notion of dispositions commonly employed by critical thinking theorists and, further, that it is more illuminating to speak of the virtues of inquiry rather than of argumentation. Our central argument is that learning to think critically is a matter of learning to participate knowledgeably and (...) competently in the practice of inquiry in its various forms and contexts. Acquiring the virtues of inquiry arises through getting on the inside of the practice and coming to appreciate the goods inherent in the practice. (shrink)

The article shows how two domains of Neurath’s broad and multifaceted work are related to each other: the concepts and methods he wanted to implement in political economics, on the one hand, and the methods of visualization that he and his interdisciplinary team developed at the Social and Economic Museum of Vienna, on the other. Some of Neurath’s suggestions in both domains are surprisingly modern even today.

Considerable unclarity exists in the literature concerning the origin and authorship of Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis, the Vienna Circle’s manifesto of 1929 and on the extent of and the reasons for the mixed reception it received in the Circle itself. This paper reconsiders these matters on the light of so far insufªciently consulted documents.

This paper rejects as unfounded a recent criticism of research on the so-called left wing of the Vienna Circle and the claim that it sported a political philosophy of science. The demand for ‘specific, local periodized claims’ is turned against the critic. It is shown (i) that certain criticisms of Red Vienna’s leading party cannot be transferred to the members of the Circle involved in popular education, nor can criticism of Carnap’s Aufbau be transferred to Neurath’s unified science project; (ii) (...) that neither with regard to Carnap nor to Neurath does the criticism raise points that either engage with the thesis proposed or stand up to closer scrutiny; (iii) that the main thesis attacked is just what I had warned the claim that the Vienna Circle had a political philosophy of science should not be understood as. The question whether theirs is ‘political enough’ today can and should be discussed without distortion of the historical record. (shrink)

This paper provides a description and analysis of Wilhelm Neurath's economics and theory of value. Otto Neurath's rejection of a distinct methodology for social science and his insistence on the political partisanship of scientific sociology, I argue, represent his attempt to both continue the practical orientation of his father's theorizing and answer the normative problem his father's theories faced.

This paper provides a description and analysis of Wilhelm Neurath's economics and theory of value. Otto Neurath's rejection of a distinct methodology for social science and his insistence on the political partisanship of scientific sociology, I argue, represent his attempt to both continue the practical orientation of his father's theorizing and answer the normative problem his father's theories faced.

: Considerable unclarity exists in the literature concerning the origin and authorship of Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis, the Vienna Circle's manifesto of 1929 and on the extent of and the reasons for the mixed reception it received in the Circle itself. This paper reconsiders these matters on the light of so far insufficiently consulted documents.

Logical Empiricism is commonly regarded as uninterested in, if not hostile to sociological investigations of science. This paper reconstructs the views of Otto Neurath and Philipp Frank on the legitimacy and relevance of sociological investigations of theory choice. It is argued that while there obtains a surprising degree of convergence between their programmatic pronouncements and the Strong Programme, the two types of project nevertheless remain distinct. The key to this differences lies in the different assessment of a supposed dilemma facing (...) post-Mertonian sociologists of science. (shrink)

Critics of the ideal of value‐free science often assume that they must reject the distinction between epistemic and nonepistemic values. I argue that this assumption is mistaken and that the distinction can be used to clarify and defend the argument from inductive risk, which challenges the value‐free ideal. I develop the idea that the characteristic feature of epistemic values is that they promote, either intrinsically or extrinsically, the attainment of truths. This proposal is shown to answer common objections to the (...) distinction and provide a principled basis for separating legitimate from illegitimate influences of nonepistemic values in scientific inference. *Received June 2009; revised September 2009. †To contact the author, please write to: 503 S. Kedzie Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824‐1032; e‐mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

Recent scholarship resuscitates the history and philosophy of a ‘left wing’ in the Vienna Circle, offering a counterhistory to the conventional image of analytic philosophy as politically conformist. This paper disputes the historical claim that early logical empiricists developed a political philosophy of science. Though some individuals in the Vienna Circle, including Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath, believed strongly in the importance of science to social progress, they did not construct a political philosophy of science. Both Carnap and Neurath were (...) committed to forms of political neutralism that run strongly against a political reading of their logical empiricism. In addition, Carnap and Neurath sharply differ on precisely the subject of the place of politics in logical empiricism, throwing into question the construct of the ‘Left Vienna Circle’ as a coherent, sociohistorical, programmatic unit within the Vienna Circle.Keywords: Vienna Circle; Rudolf Carnap; Otto Neurath; Logical empiricism; History of philosophy of science; Political philosophy of science. (shrink)

Es wird vorgeschlagen, einen Begriff „Lebenslage“ in den Sozialwissenschaften zu verwenden, der nicht nur „Wohnung“, „Nahrung“, „Kleidung“ und andere Teile des „Realeinkommens“ umfasst, sondern auch „Mortalität“, „Morbidität“ usw. Die gesamte „Lebensstimmung“ einer Person hängt von der Gesamtheit der Lebenslagenteile ab, von der Morbidität ebenso wie von der Wohnung. Ob man die Lebens-Stimmung in „positive“ und „negative“ Elemente zerlegen kann, die man einzelnen Elementen der Lebenslage zuordnet, ist eine offene Frage.Die wissenschaftliche Praxis geht am besten von „Lebenslagenphysiognomien“ (Lebenslagensilhouetten) aus, die durch (...) verschiedenartig gemessene und skalierte Grössen gebildet werden. Wenn man die Lebenslagen einzelner Personen oder ganzer Länder auch nicht stets „skalierend“ zu vergleichen vermag, so kann man sie doch immer beschreiben. Geht man daran, „Lebenslagenkataster“ (Lebenslageninventare) verschiedener Völker und Zeiten aufzustellen, so muss man beachten, dass die Lebensstimmung eines Menschen nicht etwa schon durch die Garten fläche gekennzeichnet wird, die ihm zur Verfügung steht ; man muss angeben, über wieviel Freizeit er verfügt, um die Gartenfläche zu benutzen.Man kann Gesellschaftsordnungen durch die von ihnen „produzierten“ Lebenslagen ln Verbindung mit einer umfassenden „Naturalrechnung“ kennzeichnen. Ob die Geldrechnung in gewissem Ausmass geeignet ist, die Naturalrechnung zu ersetzen, kann nur mit Hilfe der Naturalrechnung entschieden werden, innerhalb deren die Lebenslagenrechnung eine wesentliche Rolle spielt.On propose d'introduire dans les sciences sociales le concept de „situation de vie“, qui englobe non seulement logement, alimentation, vêtement et autres parties du revenu réel, mais aussi mortalité, morbidité, etc. Le „climat de vie“ d'une personne dépend de l'ensemble de sa „situation de vie“, de la morbidité aussi bien que du logement. Est-il possible de décomposer le „climat de vie“ en éléments „positifs“ et „négatifs“, qui correspondraient aux différents éléments de sa „situation de vie“? Réservons provisoirement la question.Si nous envisageons la méthode scientifique, le point de départ le meilleur serait la notion de „physiognomie (silhouette) de vie“. On les dessinerait à l'aide de grandeurs diversement mesurées et graduées.Certes, il ne serait guère possible de comparer les „situations de vie“ de personnes ou de peuples entiers en utilisant une seule échelle de graduation, tout au moins est-il possible de les décrire. Si l'on tente de dresser un „cadastre (inventaire) de situations de vie“ de différents peuples en différentes époques, il ne faut pas oublier que le „climat“ dans lequel vit un individu n'est pas assez déterminé par la surface du jardin qui lui appartient, il faut aussi préciser le loisir dont il dispose pour le cultiver.On peut caractériser les différents régimes sociaux par les situations de vie qu'ils produisent, à condition de combiner cette analyse avec un calcul en nature aussi étendu que possible. Le calcul en argent peut-il remplacer dans une certaine mesure le calcul en nature? La question elle-même ne peut être tranchée qu'à l’aide du calcul en nature qui lui-même dépend largement du calcul des „situations de vie“. (shrink)

On 15 October 1959, Rudolf Carnap, a leading member of the recently founded Vienna Circle, came to lecture at the Bauhaus in Dessau, southwest of Berlin. Carnap had just finished his magnum opus, The Logical Construction of the World, a book that immediately became the bible of the new antiphilosophy announced by the logical positivists. From a small group in Vienna, the movement soon expanded to include an international following, and in the sixty years since has exerted a powerful sway (...) over the conduct of the philosophy of science as well as over wide branches of philosophy, economics, psychology, and physics. The site of Carnap’s lecture that day, the Dessau Bauhaus, was a stunning building designed by Walter Gropius and dedicated just three years earlier. Protected by its flat roof and glass walls, the artists, architects, weavers, and furniture designers had made the school a citadel of high modernism. It was here that Carnap addressed an enthusiastic audience on “Science and Life.” “I work in science,” he began, “and you in visible forms; the two are only different sides of a single life.”1 In this paper I will explore this “single life” of which the new philosophy and the new art were to be different facets; in the process, I hope to cast light on the shared modernist impulses that drove both disciplines in the interwar years. 1. Rudolf Carnap, lecture notes for his Bauhaus lecture, “Wissenschaft und Leben,” prepared 1 Oct. 1929 and delivered 15 Oct. 1929, transcription from shorthand by Gerald Heverly, Carnap Papers in the Archives of Scientific Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Libraries, University of Pittsburgh , document RC 110-07-49. Quoted by permission of the University of Pittsburgh. All rights reserved. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. Peter Galison is associate professor in the departments of philosophy and physics at Stanford University, where he co-chairs the program in the history of science. His primary interest is in the history and philosophy of experimentation, the subject of his How Experiments End and Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, edited with Bruce Hevly . His current project is entitled Image and Logic: The Material Culture of Modern Physics. (shrink)