Logical Empiricism and Naturalism: Neurath and Carnap’s Metatheory of Science

Research output: Book/ReportBookpeer-review

Abstract

This text provides an extensive exploration of the relationship between the thought of Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap, providing a new argument for the complementarity of their mature philosophies as part of a collaborative metatheory of science. In arguing that both Neurath and Carnap must be interpreted as proponents of epistemological naturalism, and that their naturalisms rest on shared philosophical ground, it is also demonstrated that the boundaries and possibilities for epistemological naturalism are not as restrictive as Quinean orthodoxy has previously suggested. Both building on and challenging the scholarship of the past four decades, this naturalist reading of Carnap also provides a new interpretation of Carnap’s conception of analyticity, allowing for a refutation of the Quinean argument for the incompatibility of naturalism and the analytic/synthetic distinction. In doing so, the relevance and potential importance of their scientific meta-theory for contemporary questions in the philosophy of science is demonstrated.

This text appeals to students and researchers working on Logical Empiricism, Quine, the history of analytic philosophy and the history of philosophy of science, as well as proponents of naturalized epistemology.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationCham
PublisherSpringer Nature
Number of pages216
ISBN (Electronic)9783031293283
ISBN (Print)9783031293276, 9783031293306
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jun 2023

Publication series

NameVienna Circle Institute Library
PublisherSpringer
Volume8
ISSN (Print)1571-3083

Keywords

  • Rudolf Carnap
  • W.V.O. Quine
  • naturalism and philosophy
  • Otto Neurath
  • naturalized epistemology
  • logical empiricism
  • protocol sentence debate

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Logical Empiricism and Naturalism: Neurath and Carnap’s Metatheory of Science'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this