
\brief{Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap und Charles W. Morris, 12.~November 1936}{November 1936}


\anrede{\uline{I am sending a copy of this letter to Carnap!}}


\anrede{Dear Morris,}

\haupttext{
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:

\noindent INTERNATIONAL UNITY OF SCIENCE ENCYCLOPAEDIA (my arguments in my letter of Nov.~2\textsuperscript{nd}).

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

\noindent FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITY OF SCIENCE.

\begin{enumerate}
\item THE UNITY OF SCIENCE. General introduction, as you suggest: \hfill NEURATH\\
\hspace*{10mm} Different articles: \hfill CARNAP\\
\hspace*{10mm} (I would be very glad if possible:) \hfill  DEWEY\\
\hspace*{10mm}\hfill MORRIS\\
\hspace*{10mm}\hfill RUSSELL\\
\hspace*{10mm} (perhaps a short contribution of a Frenchman, maybe:) \hfill ROUGIER

\item LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE \hfill CARNAP

\item 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.) \hfill MORRIS

\item 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.) \hfill (BLOOMFIELD) \& ANDRADE

\item 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.)\hspace*{10mm}\hfill GÖDEL

\item PHYSICS  \hfill FRANK

\item COSMOLOGY (My arguments separate.) \hfill REICHENBACH

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

\item BIOLOGY AND PHYSICS \hfill LECOMTE DU NO"UY, RASHEVSKY

\item 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.)

\item SOCIOLOGY \hfill NEURATH

\item 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 \neueseite{} not incapricious!) \hfill ENRIQUES

\item 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.) \hfill ŁUKASIEWICZ

\item THE EMPIRICISM IN THE HISTORY\ldots\ 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. \hfill X.Y.Z. \&\ ROUGIER

\item THE LOGICAL EMPIRICISM (only the last 100 years!) -- \uline{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.) \hfill JØRGENSEN

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

\item GENERAL INDEX (most important!!!) NOTES, etc.
\end{enumerate}

\noindent 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:

\begin{itemize}
\item[] A. \gesperrt{\uline{About}} Sciences. 1, 2, 3, 4. (included language\ldots)
\item[] B. SCIENCES 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
\item[] C. HISTORY OF SCIENCES 13, 14, 15.
\end{itemize}

\noindent “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 \gesperrt{logical} standpoint within our movement. \neueseite{} 

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 \gesperrt{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 broached\fnAmargin{Ksl. (über ,,broached``) \original{\textsp{anstechen}}.} by Mises and myself and other
people in Prague 1929.\fnE{Vgl. den Abschnitt ,,Diskussion über Wahrscheinlichkeit`` im Bericht über die Prager Tagung 1929 in \textit{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 \gesperrt{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 \uline{applied}” is a
very important thing and Mises has a great many experience in
\gesperrt{concrete} problems of this kind, but \gesperrt{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 \gesperrt{not} special\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{,,Methode der Wissenschaft`` ist kein spezielles Problem etwa im Sinne von Feigl, \glqq Theorie und Erfahrung in der Physik\grqq}}.} 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
\neueseite{} 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\ldots\ and Woodger from bringing
too special tricks\ldots{}  
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.
}

\grussformel{Cordially\\ON}

\ebericht{Brief, Dsl., 4 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846381}{RC 102-52-05}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{Nov. 12\textsuperscript{th} 1936} und \original{George Washington Hotel. Lexington. 23\textsuperscript{rd} str. New York City}.}
