# Charles W. Morris an Rudolf Carnap und Otto Neurath1 Obwohl im Brief nicht explizit erwähnt, erging ein Durchschlag an Carnap., 9. November 1936 November 1936

Dear Neurath‚

Pardon the paper, but I am writing at home and this is all I have with me. Carnap and I have talked your letter over twice, and what I shall say is also approximately his opinion. First I shall refer to the 20 pamphlets:

Foundations of the Unity of Science:

1. The Unity of Science.
   I do not like your title of Enc. and Encyclopaedism. This volume should give an idea of the whole plan, the logical basis of the unification (“reduction”), something of the historical background, the general significance of the project etc. Aslo the topics you mention. As general editor I think you should start the volume off. Then perhaps shorter statements by Carnap, Russell etc. I could contribute a few pages on the general significance.

2. Logical Analysis of ScienceCarnap

3. Signs and MeaningMorris

4. General LinguisticsAndrade
   Andrade is now working up a pamphlet on this topic. He knows fairly well the writings of our group, and his general position fits in very well with our own. I know his views in detail and fell sure he can do what we want. I would go over the material of his pamphlet with him in detail. I know of no linguist who could do this better – Bloomfield would be second choice. He might also write.

5. The Foundations of MathematicsGoedel
   Menger and Tarski are possibilities and might make contributions even if Goedel has the main job. Goedel must be asked to see if he would write in the style and at the level which would be suitable. It is a great tragedy that Hahn is not alive to do this.

6. Scientific Applications of Logical AnalysisMises
   Both Carnap and I think something of this sort is a necessary addition. Logical analysis would be illustrated by reference to specific problems of various sciences Carnap suggests it might be called The Methodology of Empirical Science. Hempel is the second choice.

7. Probability and InductionReichenbach
   We think this is better for him, if Mises will do 6.

8. PsychologyTolman
   We wonder if Tolman will be able to stress the logical aspect sufficiently. Might he and Brunswik both do it? or Brunswik add a few pages. (In general Carnap and I feel that these first 20 pamphlets should be mainly in the hands of one person apiece, with not too many additional persons taking part.)

   🕮

9. SocietyNeurath
   Should anything so specialized as business cacles be treated? Perhaps however you regard it as a special example of your thesis?

10. The History of ScienceEnriques
    Should stress the importance of the history of knowledge for the unity of science movement, and dor an insight into the methodology and logic of science. I do not think it should simply be a history of science, but more a history of scientific method. How much does Boll know of this sort? Perhaps he can take some part, but I feel that the project should be in the hands of one person mainly. Enriques has some drawbacks, but I know of no one better – and the history of science is one of my own special interests so I have some knowledge of the men available. (A young German Jacob Klein is doing some fine writing and might be useful later in the Encyclopedia) Carnap and I feel that the history of logic may be too special a topic for a separate volume. Carnap feels this more than I do however, and so if Łukasiewicz would write it I favor

11. The History of LogicŁukasiewicz

12. The History of Scientific EmpiricismRougier
    To pick out those part of the history of ideas which are forerunners of our movement. That is, a history of ideas seen from our perspective instead of from the traditional metaphysical perspective. (My Paris paper had much to say on this) We wonder whether two volumes are necessary, as you suggested in your numbers 12 and 14. Statements about the movement in various countries are good, but I think they may become too “gossipy” for these first pamphlets. Thus there is not really much to say about China, Japan, etc. now is there. Don’t we more want results in the Encyclopedia rather than too much bare information about and propaganda for the movement. It seems to me one pamphlet on this topic is sufficient.

13. BiologyWoodger

14. Biology and PhysicsRashevsky; du Nouy
    I am not sure that we can get anyone to do your numbers 17 and 18 (Geology and Chemistry) I talked with Senior: he is apparently not willing to do a general pamphlet, though I think he could do it. He mentioned G. N. Lewis as a possibility, but I do not think he (Lewis) knows enough about us. How about the Pole who wrote on chemistry in the Paris volumes? Unless we are sue of our person, I prefer to omit chemistry in the first series.

15. The Logic of Value Judgements
    It would be good to have a series of papers dealing with logical analysis in education, ethics, esthetics, and value in general if we can find the persons. Dewey has written on the logic of value judgments; Dubislav has just written a paper on ethics which I have read and which is to be published soon in the Intern. Journal of Ethics; Kraft in Vienna is to do a volume on value for the Frank-Schlick (now Frank-Carnap) series; I know a Dr. Lee Byrne (now in Hawaii) who is thoroughly sympathetic to our movement and has a mastery of education and logic – he could write on Logical Analysis in Education; Prof. Prall at Harvard is interested in logical analysis in esthetics and is 🕮 sympathetic to us (Carnap knows him – he wanted to translate Carnap’s Logische Syntax and Carnap regrets that it was not possible to have him do it). Such a series of papers would be of great interest, but there is of course some danger in attempting to include them in the first series. Carnap suggests we might ask such men to submit to us a brief paper giving their views on these matters, and then if our committee found these suitable we could ask them to write the paper. It would be very good to have some word from you about visual education in the volume.

16. BibliographyJørgensen

Your comments on this are good. I question biographies.

This cuts the number down somewhat. We see no reason why there must be exactly 20. If we want more, we might think of other topics. How about Freundlich on Cosmology (or a second pamphlet by Reichenbach). Something by Popper? Fraenkel? (on quantum mechanics?) Discussion of some traditional problems of philosophy seen from this standpoint? A special treatment of causality and indeterminism?

We believe it might be good to ask the members of our Permanent International Committee to allow us to use their names as sponsoring the work. So these names and names of the members of the special encyclopedia committee would appear in announcements and on each volume – with your name as general editor. Then the larger committee for the whole work could be built up more slowly – and persons like Kaempffert could appear on this later list. I think our small committee is sufficient for carrying through the first series (it does seem to me personally that Reichenbach should be added to this committee). The larger committee for the whole project must be selected carefully – I see no reason for doing this at once.

I will send you today some of the material on Frank. I have no information on his specific work in physics.

Is it satisfactory to you for us to turn over to the Press the above 16 titles, reserving the right to change titles and authors and to expand the list to 20? As soon as I hear from you on this I well give the list to the Press – we should not delay this longer.

Cordially‚
CWMorris

Brief, msl., 3 Seiten, RC 102-52-08; oben November 9, 1936.

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