
\brief{Charles W. Morris an Rudolf Carnap und Otto Neurath\fnE{Obwohl im Brief
nicht explizit erwähnt, erging ein Durchschlag an Carnap.}, 9. November 1936}{November 1936}

\anrede{Dear Neurath,}

\haupttext{
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:

\medskip
\uline{Foundations of the Unity of Science:}

\begin{enumerate}

\item \uline{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.

\item \uline{Logical Analysis of Science} \hfill Carnap

\item \uline{Signs and Meaning} \hfill Morris

\item \uline{General Linguistics} \hfill Andrade\\Andrade is \uline{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 \uline{also} write.

\item \uline{The Foundations of Mathematics} \hfill Goedel\\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.

\item \uline{Scientific Applications of Logical Analysis} \hfill Mises\\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.

\item \uline{Probability and Induction} \hfill Reichenbach\\We think this is better for him, if Mises will do 6.

\item \uline{Psychology} \hfill Tolman\\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.)


\neueseite{2}


\item \uline{Society} \hfill Neurath\\Should anything so specialized as business cacles be treated? Perhaps however
you regard it as a special example of your thesis?

\item \uline{The History of Science} \hfill Enriques\\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 Enc\editor{yclopedia}) Carnap and I feel that the history of logic may be too
special a topic for a separate volume. C\editor{arnap} feels this more than I do however, and
so if Łukasiewicz would write it I favor

\item \uline{The History of Logic} \hfill Łukasiewicz

\item \uline{The History of Scientific Empiricism} \hfill Rougier\\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 \uline{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. \uline{now} is there. Don't we more
want \uline{results} in the Enc\editor{yclopedia} rather than too much bare information about and
propaganda for the movement. It seems to me one pamphlet on this topic is
sufficient.

\item \uline{Biology} \hfill Woodger

\item \uline{Biology and Physics} \hfill Rashevsky; 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.

\item \uline{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 \uline{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 \neueseite{3} sympathetic to
us (Carnap knows him -- he wanted to translate C\editor{arnap'}s Logische Syntax and C\editor{arnap} 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. C\editor{arnap} 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.

\item \uline{Bibliography} \hfill Jørgensen
\end{enumerate}

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 Inter\editor{national} Committee
to allow us to use their names as sponsoring the work. So these names and names
of the members of the special enc\editor{yclopedia} comm\editor{ittee} 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.
}

\grussformel{Cordially,\\CWMorris}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 3 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846388}{RC 102-52-08}; oben \original{November 9, 1936}.}
