APA PsycNET abstract: This is the first volume of a two-volume work on Probability and Induction. Because the writer holds that probability logic is identical with inductive logic, this work is devoted to philosophical problems concerning the nature of probability and inductive reasoning. The author rejects a statistical frequency basis for probability in favor of a logical relation between two statements or propositions. Probability "is the degree of confirmation of a hypothesis (or conclusion) on the basis of some given evidence (...) (or premises)." Furthermore, all principles and theorems of inductive logic are analytic, and the entire system is to be constructed by means of symbolic logic and semantic methods. This means that the author confines himself to the formalistic procedures of word and symbol systems. The resulting sentence or language structures are presumed to separate off logic from all subjectivist or psychological elements. Despite the abstractionism, the claim is made that if an inductive probability system of logic can be constructed it will have its practical application in mathematical statistics, and in various sciences. 16-page bibliography. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

This is identical with the first edition (see 21: 2716) except for the addition of a Supplement containing 5 previously published articles and the bringing of the bibliography (now 73 items) up to date. The 5 added articles present clarifications or modifications of views expressed in the first edition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Available for the first time in 20 years, here is the Rudolf Carnap's famous principle of tolerance by which everyone is free to mix and match the rules of ...

Das Ziel: Konstitutionssystem der Begriffe Das Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchungen ist die Aufstellung eines erkenntnismäßig-logischen Systems der ...

Two chief problems of the theory of knowledge are the question of meaning and the question of verification. The first question asks under what conditions a sentence has meaning, in the sense of cognitive, factual meaning. The second one asks how we get to know something, how we can find out whether a given sentence is true or false. The second question presupposes the first one. Obviously we must understand a sentence, i.e. we must know its meaning, before we can (...) try to find out whether it is true or not. But, from the point of view of empiricism, there is a still closer connection between the two problems. In a certain sense, there is only one answer to the two questions. If we knew what it would be for a given sentence to be found true then we would know what its meaning is. And if for two sentences the conditions under which we would have to take them as true are the same, then they have the same meaning. Thus the meaning of a sentence is in a certain sense identical with the way we determine its truth or falsehood; and a sentence has meaning only if such a determination is possible. (shrink)

Available for the first time in 20 years, here are two important works from the 1920s by the best-known representative of the Vienna Circle.

Available for the first time in 20 years, here are two important works from the 1920s by the best-known representative of the Vienna Circle.

'My endeavour in these pages is to explain the main features of the method of philosophizing which we, the Vienna Circle, use, and by using try to develop further. It is the method of the logical analysis of science, or more precisely, of the syntactical analysis of scientific language.... The purpose of the book -- as of the lectures -- is to give a first impression of our method and of the direction of our questions and investigations to those who (...) are not yet acquainted with them.' -- From the Preface. (shrink)

As a leading member of the Vienna Circle, Rudolph Carnap's aim was to bring about a "unified science" by applying a method of logical analysis to the empirical data of all the sciences. This work, first published in English in 1934, endeavors to work out a way in which the observation statements required for verification are not private to the observer. The work shows the strong influence of Wittgenstein, Russell, and Frege.

Two chief problems of the theory of knowledge are the question of meaning and the question of verification. The first question asks under what conditions a sentence has meaning, in the sense of cognitive, factual meaning. The second one asks how we get to know something, how we can find out whether a given sentence is true or false. The second question presupposes the first one. Obviously we must understand a sentence, i.e. we must know its meaning, before we can (...) try to find out whether it is true or not. But, from the point of view of empiricism, there is a still closer connection between the two problems. In a certain sense, there is only one answer to the two questions. If we knew what it would be for a given sentence to be found true then we would know what its meaning is. And if for two sentences the conditions under which we would have to take them as true are the same, then they have the same meaning. Thus the meaning of a sentence is in a certain sense identical with the way we determine its truth or falsehood; and a sentence has meaning only if such a determination is possible. (shrink)

Stimulating, thought-provoking text by one of the 20th century’s most creative philosophers clearly and discerningly makes accessible such topics as probability, measurement and quantitative language, structure of space, causality and determinism, theoretical laws and concepts and much more. "...the best book available for the intelligent reader who wants to gain some insight into the nature of contemporary philosophy of science."—Choice.

Clear, comprehensive, intermediate introduction to logical languages, applications of symbolic logic to physics, mathematics, biology.

"This book is valuable as expounding in full a theory of meaning that has its roots in the work of Frege and has been of the widest influence.... The chief virtue of the book is its systematic character. From Frege to Quine most philosophical logicians have restricted themselves by piecemeal and local assaults on the problems involved. The book is marked by a genial tolerance. Carnap sees himself as proposing conventions rather than asserting truths. However he provides plenty of matter (...) for argument."-Anthony Quinton, Hibbert Journal. (shrink)

Dieses Buch stellt eine neue, von CARNAP entwickelte Theorie der Induktion und Wahrscheinlichkeit dar, die durch die folgenden grund legenden Auffassungen charakterisiert ist. 1. Jedes induktive Schließen, im weiten Sinne des nichtdeduktiven oder nichtdemonstrativen Schlu߭ folgerns, ist ein Schließen auf Grund von Wahrscheinlichkeit. 2. Daher ist die induktive Logik als Theorie von den Prinzipien des induktiven Schließens dasselbe wie Wahrscheinlichkeitslogik. 3. Der Begriff der Wahrscheinlichkeit, der als Grundbegriff der induktiven Logik dienen soll, ist eine logische Relation zwischen zwei Aussagen oder (...) Sätzen, näm lich der Grad der Bestätigung einer Hypothese auf der Grundlage gegebe ner Prämissen. 4. Der sogenannte Häufigkeitsbegriff der Wahrschein lichkeit, wie er in statistischen Untersuchungen verwendet wird, ist zwar an und für sich ein wichtiger wissenschaftlicher Begriff, als Grundbegriff der induktiven Logik jedoch unbrauchbar. 5. Alle Prinzipien und Lehr sätze der induktiven Logik sind analytisch. 6. Daher hängt die Gültig keit des induktiven Schließens nicht von irgendwelchen synthetischen Voraussetzungen ab, wie etwa dem vielumstrittenen Prinzip der Gleich förmigkeit der Welt. Die erste Aufgabe dieses Buches ist die Erörterung der allgemeinen philosophischen Probleme betreffend die Natur der Wahrscheinlichkeit und des induktiven Schließens, die uns zu den eben erwähnten Auffassun gen führen wird. Das zweite Ziel ist der tatsächliche Aufbau eines Systems der induktiven Logik, einer Theorie, die auf den angeführten Prinzipien beruht. Ein besonderes Augenmerk wurde in diesem Buch darauf gelegt, die intuitive philosophische Grundlegung klar von dem technischen Aufbau des Systems der induktiven Logik zu trennen. (shrink)