# Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap und Charles W. Morris, 12. November 1936 November 1936

I am sending a copy of this letter to Carnap!

Dear Morris‚

All pardons, which are in my store: for you! Black and yellow are first class advertising combination!

I am not interested in the number “twenty” – I remembered only that this exact number was mentioned in our University of Chicago Press meeting.

Because I have opportunities to speak with different interested persons about our plan, tell me please, if I can use the title:

INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF SCIENCE ENCYCLOPAEDIA (my arguments in my letter of Nov. 2nd).

I would agree with you both, if you could propose:

FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITY OF SCIENCE.

1. THE UNITY OF SCIENCE. General introduction, as you suggest: NEURATH
   Different articles: CARNAP
   (I would be very glad if possible:) DEWEY
   MORRIS
   RUSSELL
   (perhaps a short contribution of a Frenchman, maybe:) ROUGIER

2. LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE CARNAP

3. SEMIOTIC (I prefer a unification of title type. Either the subject-matters or the names of sciences. I see you both prefer the names – OK. But in this case we must be – if possible – consistent. Or have you a special objection against “Semiotic”? – that is your term in other cases.) MORRIS

4. GENERAL LINGUISTICS (If it is possible to speak with the author about the one or the other formulation, that we well get a harmony of all pamphlets, I agree with great pleasure.) (BLOOMFIELD) & ANDRADE

5. MATHEMATICS (I am prepared to write a letter to Gödel. He is in a close connection with the evolution of our movement. I appreciate Menger very much, but I know it is possible that he is capricious in the one or other case.)GÖDEL

6. PHYSICS FRANK

7. COSMOLOGY (My arguments separate.) REICHENBACH

8. BIOLOGY (The best would be to use more than one author. It is possible that Woodger will write too isolated – perhaps.) WOODGER

9. BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS LECOMTE DU NOÜY, RASHEVSKY

10. PSYCHOLOGY (I do not like this name – but what to do? We cannot make special propaganda in such an encyclopaedia for a new name as “behavioristics”. Sorry. I know the difficulties if we use Tolman alone. Perhaps in connection with Arne Næss? I appreciate Brunswik and I agree with you that he shall give also an addition, but I do not know in which extension he is willing to discuss our special logical aspect. That is the same as in the case Tolman – I think so.)

11. SOCIOLOGY NEURATH

12. THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE (Better would be to say that we will use more than one person. BOLL has a great many knowledge of this field, He is 🕮 not incapricious!) ENRIQUES

13. THE HISTORY OF LOGIC (I agree with all your hesitations – but an encyclopaedia is not an utopian work but a part of our period in general. I feel for that a representative of the Polish School must speak. Łukasiewicz has a very fine taste on this field and a tremendous knowledge. We do not know if he will have another opportunity to write such a short synopsis of the history of logic. I hope it would be possible to make that he will have regard to our special interests.) ŁUKASIEWICZ

14. THE EMPIRICISM IN THE HISTORY…or another title of this kind. Rougier is specially interested in the older periods. I hope he could collaborate with people giving him data about India, Far East etc. X.Y.Z. &ROUGIER

15. THE LOGICAL EMPIRICISM (only the last 100 years!) –WITH BIBLIO"-GRAPHY (Jørgensen read an address in Kopenhagen about our movement. I think he has a closer connection to the whole movement. “Bibliography” alone would be an insufficient task. I do not know, if Rougier is so in connection with the whole literature, the logistic literature included, than Jørgensen.) JØRGENSEN

16. DIFFERENT SCIENCES, only if we have collaborators. Chemistry, geology, statistics applied, education, esthetics, and so on. NOT DEFINITE! (I hope that within our encyclopaedia the term “Value” is on our index, not the discussed problems!)

17. GENERAL INDEX (most important!!!) NOTES, etc.

I have heavy objections against a special pamphlet about probability and induction in these two first volumes. I feel for the UNITY OF SCIENCE as a coordination of sciences, by means of bridges, unification of terminology, maybe of laws and so on. The plan is perhaps:

- A. About Sciences. 1, 2, 3, 4. (included language…)
- B. SCIENCES 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
- C. HISTORY OF SCIENCES 13, 14, 15.

“Probability and Induction” include problems which are specially discussed in the next volumes and discussed partially in different pamphlets of our first two volumes. I have also objections against joining probability and induction. The problem of induction is not only in connection with probability.

Reichenbachs special theses on this field are too isolated from the logical standpoint within our movement. 🕮

You see FEIGL, HEMPEL, MISES etc. do not agree with Reichenbach and give good arguments. Carnap and myself cannot agree with Reichenbachs induction theses. I am not specialist for probability, but I feel that Reichenbachs position is not the best from logical standpoint. You see all my power is concentrated in the task to remove all too hard differences in the first steps of our encyclopaedia. In the special volumes the discussions within our logical empiricism would be interesting and very stimulating. But “Induction” is to controvers in this moment and a special chapter not absolutely necessary. Cosmology is very important.

I must emphasize that I am willing to cooperate with the specialists in our committee. And Philipp Frank spoke with me about the chapters. We appreciate Reichenbachs ideas (read please my statements about him in my book about the Vienna Circle) but we must avoid that the conflict between Reichenbach and Mises would be too visible. Mises is in close connection with the unity of science movement and more Machist than we self, he is collaborating with Philipp Frank. I think over the difficulty to prepare the special volume in which we must bring the pamphlets about probability in future. I feel for Hempels argumentations. He is giving a good solution of the problem broacheda Ksl. (über „broached“) anstechen. by Mises and myself and other people in Prague 1929.1 Vgl. den Abschnitt „Diskussion über Wahrscheinlichkeit“ im Bericht über die Prager Tagung 1929 in Erkenntnis 1, 1930/31, S. 260–285. Mises is accepting Hempels solution (see Richard von Mises, WAHRSCHEINLICHKEIT, STATISTIK UND WAHRHEIT. Schriften zur Wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung. Wien, Verlag von Julius Springer 1936. S. 107). And it would be very useful if in one of the next volumes we should get pamphlets of Hempel, Mises, Reichenbach. But not in the two first volumes, in which we cannot show discussions.

I think “Scientific Application of Logical Analysis”, that is our work in general – that we must show in the different pamphlets. If necessary we could bring additions. But we have not a man in this moment able to show all these applications. Mises is not able to do it. “Statistics applied” is a very important thing and Mises has a great many experience in concrete problems of this kind, but not in logic applied.

I appreciate Hempel very much, but I do not believe that he is able to give such a comprehensive view. He is too specialized as logician and mathematician. I saw it discussing with Lazarsfeld the review of Hempels and Oppenheims book. I do not agree with all critical remarks of Lazarsfeld but I must concede – and that was my opinion before – that it is a difficulty to make a logical analysis in a foreign field. It would be better to bring only examples and not to discuss a special field if it is not absolutely necessary, for instance if we have not people making a special analysis. I see for instance the difficulty to give a logical analysis of social sciences without a special knowledge of this field. Better is to bring not such a pamphlet within the two first volumes.

I have objections against the term “Methodology” proposed by Carnap – a great many serious objections. My feeling is that people are willing to use the methodology as “Erkenntnistheorieersatz”. In a great many cases. But that is a problem of our discussions in the near future. In these two volumes, I think [it] would be the best to bring only SCIENCES with the four pamphlets about sciences, language, signs etc., and the historical pamphlets but not specialb Ksl. „Methode der Wissenschaft“ ist kein spezielles Problem etwa im Sinne von Feigl, „Theorie und Erfahrung in der Physik“. problems, if it is not absolutely necessary. I would be very glad if you both would agree with me.

Reichenbach could make a very fine and interesting pamphlet about COSMOLOGY. He was working in this field and would use his special ideas about theory of relativity and so on. I feel for cooperation of Freundlich. Frank thinks we could give him ASTRONOMY and the different special problems which are in connection with these problems. But that would better be worked out in the next volumes. Or not? Frank was giving names of different biologists. I think it would be possible to let open a door for more collaborators in biology, if you both agree with such open doors.

If it is not absolutely necessary that you both make changes, I would prefer that we collaborate in all steps. I spoke with Frank and about the one and the other point with Jørgensen, only in general with Rougier, because he was not 🕮 in Kopenhagen. There are a great many difficulties – differences between single persons and so on! Europe is not so cooperative as the U.S. It is for instance a difference between Rougier and Boll. And it is necessary to give Boll an opportunity to speak and so on.

I must think over that our collaborators do not speak too much about special details not interesting people or provoking opposition of other collaborators. For instance I must retain Neurath from explaining the necessity of protocolstatements of a special form and so on and Reichenbach from explaining the special utopian ideas about induction and so on…and Woodger from bringing too special tricks… I agree with you that we could invite the members of our big committee to allow to use their names because the congresses accepted your proposal.

I spoke with our presidents to call the special department of the Mundaneum Institute “UNITY OF SCIENCE INSTITUTE” – that is in concordance with the constitution of our institute which is incorporated as foundation in Holland. The ENCYCLOPAEDIA COMMITTEE is a committee of this institute. It would be very important if we could invite you and Carnap also to collaborate in closer connection with us. That means for instance to build up more bridges between Far East and us and so on. I see a few opportunities. But I think it is not necessary in this moment to discuss these problems. I hope we will find time in January.

I agree with you that it is not necessary in this moment to discuss the larger committee for the whole work, the single committees and so on. We will collect a great many experience in building up the two first volumes.

Cordially
ON

Brief, Dsl., 4 Seiten, RC 102-52-05; Briefkopf: msl. Nov. 12th 1936 und George Washington Hotel. Lexington. 23rd str. New York City.

Processed with \(\mathsf{valep\TeX}\), Version 0.1, May 2024.