\brief[Neurath an Carnap, \ekll{Oxford,} 1.~April 1944]%
{Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, 1. April 1944}{April 1944}\labelcn{1944-04-01-Neurath-an-Carnap}

\anrede{Dear Carnap,}

\haupttext{
Many thanks for your long letter, particular thanks to Ina\IN{\ina} and her efforts to perform the task properly to such an extent.

Eva's\IN{\hempelfrau} death is something very terrible. You see we liked the Hempels\IN{\hempel}\IN{\hempelfrau} as two extraordinary fine and decent people. There are only a few specimens of this type there. Poor Hempel\IN{\hempel} with his baby. Both together lived on very well. He needs some personal care, and he got it from Eva\IN{\hempelfrau}. You see, we are depressed by many losses. A few weeks ago died a very fine Viennese friend of ours a young man, just over 30. Also an exceptional decent person \ldots\ and Susan\IN{\stebbing}. And all the deaths in the concentration camps, and the suicides \ldots\ I heard from some in the last time. A colleague of mine in the Commercial Academy. The son of a friend came with the parents via Russia from Denmark to England (the Father, my friend, perhaps you remember him, Otto Simon\IN{\simonotto} interested in Esperanto, Mathematician died in USA) and told me of this suicide committed in Vienna, as the Nazis entered the city. Now these hords will go down -- but what will be then? We assume that not a few Nazis will hide themselves and prefer to think of the next war instead of adapting themselves to a new world. What a world.

I am now reading some older books, to discover the ``filiation'' of the Nazi arguments. The main line Lagarde\IN{\lagarde}, Langbehn\IN{\langbehn} (Rembrandt als Erzieher), Chamberlain\IN{\rjchamberlain}, Spengler\IN{\spengleroswald}, etc. then all the typological literature, with Nohl\IN{\rjnohl}, who now discovered, that Hitler\IN{\hitler} implies the victory of the Platonic educational ideal.\fnEE{Zu Nohls Annäherung an die NS-Pädagogik siehe Ortmeyer, \textit{Herman Nohl und die NS-Zeit}.} (In accordance with the Republic, of course -- I do not object to the comparison, only that Nohl\IN{\rjnohl} accepts this evolution as something nice, but he supported Hans Grimm\IN{\grimmhans}, Volk ohne Raum, before). The types are the forerunners of races, the physiognomy of all kinds of race rubbish. Graphology, characterology etc. very dangerous spots. By the way, do you know by chance, when Br\editor{oder} Christiansen\IN{\christiansen} entered the Nazi ideology?\fnEE{Broder Christiansen war seit Mitte der 1920er-Jahre der Lebensgefährte von Elisabeth Carnap. Vgl. TB~6.\,8.\,1933\diaryref{TB-6-8-1933}, 18.\,VI.\,1937.} It is manifest for me in his older writings, too, but later on he expresses himself very clearly. When has been the decisive step?

I knew something about him and his influence and I am always astonished, when people tell me of the isolated ascetic thinker in the mountains. My picture is different. His writing is aggressive and reflects his contacts with many people. He quotes, of course, Nohl\IN{\rjnohl} etc. I should like to get a vivid picture of his life, thinking and behaving \ldots

What a pity, that your backbone is always troubling you. And what a situation not to know, what creates all the trouble. Good Nagel\IN{\nagel} also complains about the doctors and the low stage of medical knowledge. It is tremendous this knowledge, but our body is very complicated and complex -- that is the point. Let us hope, that something will come out in the near future and the doctors can make you pain\ekl{-}free at least.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Ich habe keine Schmerzen}}.} What a good luck, that ``Rockefeller'' is helping you.

I am really sorry that you agree to such an extent with Schlick\IN{\schlick}, Tarski\IN{\tarski} and Popper\IN{\popper} that you feel more with them than with me. I should like to know, what Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} thinks on that subject. I feel that what you like, is a tendency towards CALCULUS, connected with some, what I would call a mixture of crude realism and metaphysical absolutism. You very seldom speak of EMPIRICIST problems as such. I feel very uneasy. \neueseite{}\zzz I should like to see, how we together with Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} and others connected with research in an empiricist field could reach some common field, which leads us to Semantics, as you and Tarski\IN{\tarski} teach it.

The two arguments fit together:


 (1) Something may form a fine and consistent calculus -- I am not an expert in testing calculus. Strauss\IN{\straussmartin} has some doubts about the consistency, too -- that does not prohibit, that

 (2) certain ``names'' used, lead to a metaphysical ``application'' as it were. Imagine Cantor\IN{\cantor} presenting his Mengenlehre as something on the Trinity and the unknowable qualities of angels etc. One could object to these ``names'' without criticizing the calculus as such.

 (1) ``pictures a situation'' would be expressed cautiously by me ``is an accepted observation-statement'' or is an ``accepted statement, because in accepted harmony with observation-statements''. ``Descriptive story'' would be cautiously expressed: ``using observation terms and accepting the statements'' \ldots\ To your page 61, instead of needs observation, I should say: need observation statements for\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(warum?)}}.} comparison \ldots\ My objections to ``degree'' of confirmation I have often explained.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Wo? Wann? Mir unbekannt.}}.} We do not have any reason to assume a one-dimensional ranking of theories.

I am not much polemizing,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{doch, übermäßig!}}.} just I think it my ``duty'' at least to tell of my uneasiness. Otherwise people say, who is silent, accepts. I do not accept Semantics. I feel wholly uneasy myself and should try to remain within the ``acceptance'' phraseology, where I personally have to analyze science. More I did not in my note in my monograph. Very carefully.

 (2) I think the subject becomes so difficult, because you start from ``this tree is green'', whereas I start from ``we are using the sentence `this tree is green'\,'' and do not overstep this threshold\fnA{\original{treshold}}.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{wenn Du den Satz \uline{gebrauchst}, so sagst Du doch wohl schon, daß er sinnvoll ist; oder nicht?}}.}

I think, that wherever in judicial procedures or scientific books you are using the term ``true'' a careful analysis shows you that the use leads to difficulties from the\fnA{Hsl. Einschub (nur in 2.~Exemplar).} empiricist viewpoint. In a court, it is used instead of ``what the court accepts''\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{nein!}}.} or something like that. Otherwise you get the situation that A says something is true, B says something is true, and nobody can say, what is ``really'' true. As far as I can see, every person speaking carefully, would finally say ``the following possibilities seem acceptable''. That is all. A ``pluri'' formulation from the start, a group of pluriformulations.

I do not say we should ``not speak about things we do not see''. I suggest not to use this kind of phraseology, when speaking cautiously we should not speak of a ``thing seen by somebody'', but only ``somebody \uline{says} I see something'' etc.

I speak of finitism in the field of observation-statements and think it is a particular question how to relate these statements to a CALCULUS, with ``infinite'' terms.

I am very doubtful about the term ``every'' within the field of experient\ekl{i}al discussions, I think it belongs to the field of calculus and very often difficulties come out from \neueseite{}\zzz the scientific discussions because, I think so, the calculus terminology and the experiential terminology appear mixed up together.

You see the ``systematization'' disease, as I may call it is very dangerous. You see, when we assault every contradiction we cannot go on in science -- the history of Newton's\IN{\newton} theory is very significant. Of course I learned by heart, that any contradiction in a system may ``infect'' each part of it. That is the logical lesson for the youngest. But in scientific research a particular quality of a research worker is connected with his ability to give certain hypotheses not a comprehensive validity. Sometimes people apply contradictory hypotheses in different parts of their studies, avoiding their clash. OF COURSE WE TRY TO ELIMINATE THAT, BUT FINDING SUCH CONTRADICTION SHOULD NOT ALWAYS PROHIBIT US TO GO ON.

Therefore we need a teaching which stresses the two points:

 (1) how to avoid contradictions,

 (2) how to go on even when contradictions appear, if connected with ``success''.

As far as I can see, the Popperism is just fighting that. One contradiction -- everything is lost. THAT IS OK WITHIN A CALCULUS.

More. In the Social Sciences it is epidemic to say, that one does not know at the moment every element needed for complete prediction, but ``in principle'' everything is predictable, even today, if \ldots\ I maintained in my EMPIRISCHE SOZIOLOGIE that there is a field of unpredictability ``in principle''\ldots\ very important. Our youth did never discuss this point but maintained always the complete and consistent prediction scheme. You see all this talk on ``unchangeable historical laws'', of ``historical necessity'' -- some Marxians now are proud\fnA{Original \original{pride}.} of that (Marx\IN{\marx} himself has been mainly pluralist) etc. It is important for decent decisions, to maintain the pluralist situation and the unpredictability.

I think what you say about indispensability of systematization is not contradicting my attitude, as long as one does not think

 (1) that in principle the Laplace's\IN{\laplace} Demon is the picture of the scientist in action

 (2) that one will reach the LIMIT of knowledge more and more.

But I do not see that you, Popper\IN{\popper} etc. stress this point. Just at the moment it is important to see, that decisions will be made based on some scientifically reached results, but that these decisions will be based on insufficient\fnA{\original{unsufficient}} material, in principle.

One has to stress the importance of mathematics and its application to science, but to add that the systematization work is LIMITED TO THE CALCULUS PART and that the concrete predictions always have some elements of unpredictability in them, the predictability is some casual opportunity -- that is all.

Why should we not speak about language, of course one should, but one should not give the impression, that the systematization of a construed language is in any extent \neueseite{}\zzz transferable AS SUCH to the experiential scientific language,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(warum nicht?)}}.} whereas the ITEMS OF SYSTEMATIZATION are of greatest importance. NO DEFEATISM\fnA{\original{DEFAITISM}}, on\fnA{\original{in}} the contrary. I think the system fetishism of Popper\IN{\popper} is defeatist\fnA{\original{defaitist}}.

I should like to read one day an application of Popper\IN{\popper} to scientific analysis as such. As far as I can see, he is ``absolute'' -- as I have maintained -- in the idea of the BEST WORLD\ekl{-}SYSTEM, compared with others and in his contradiction principle as THE LEADING PRINCIPLE, whereas we try to eliminate contradictions or to localize them. Just this skill, as mentioned above, characterizes the experiential scientist.

I do not agree with your BEHAVIOUR statement, that unfavorable cases have a much stronger influence than favorable. That depends upon situation, people etc. Did you check up your assumption? You see, to find some extraordinary positive case is so exciting, that one tries to invalidate the trivial negative ones. In the empiricist sciences you are in a position to give the cases different weight and to ``hope'' that something may be eliminated afterwards.

I know relatively well the Ehrenhaft\IN{\ehrenhaft} discussion. Where certain research workers got extraordinary points outside the expected curve, they assumed ``the tram has been disturbing the electric apparatus''.\fnEE{Der Wiener Physiker Felix Ehrenhaft vertrat teilweise recht unorthodoxe Positionen und war in zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Debatten verwickelt. Die von ihm experimentell erzeugten Phänomene, die von den herrschenden Theorien nicht erklärt werden konnten, wurden von seinen Gegner oft auf störende Einflüsse zurückgeführt; zu Ehrenhaft vgl. Braunbeck, \textit{Der andere Physiker}.} To what extent this assumption is ``sound'' or not is not so simple to say. Ehrenhaft\IN{\ehrenhaft} fought such ``tram'' cases, of course, but the leading physicists did not. Further, Ehrenhaft\IN{\ehrenhaft} presented dozens of counter\fnA{\original{countre}}-experiments against the electricity elementary unit, but the others remained unshaken\editor{;} the NUMBER of positive instances seemed too big. I had a correspondence with Thirring\IN{\thirring} about this point from Holland, just because I am really interested in how science goes on. In sociology I know that the Popper\IN{\popper} habit would kill most investigations and every accepted going on in some fields, and I wanted to know whether physicists behave differently -- not at all. I should like to find a collaborator, that we could analyze the Ehrenhaft\IN{\ehrenhaft} discussion. I convinced some people that Ehrenhaft's\IN{\ehrenhaft} remarks are more sound than they thought and nevertheless said that their opposition remains sound from point of view of the positive instances. You never entered this argument. A pity.

POPPER\IN{\popper} is NOT a first approximation, on the contrary. He kills the bird in the egg.

The same with (2). Of course any wise scientist is interested in negative cases, but he is particularly interested in positive ones. Predicting correctly some earthquakes is something and the negative results may be regarded as based on mistakes in assumptions, mistakes in the calculus etc. etc. The thinking of the clear cut scheme as THE model is dangerous.

You see, as often, you treat complexes of arguments as if they were carefully selected. In the case of Popper\IN{\popper}\ekl{:} SOME ELEMENTS ARE METAPHYSICAL -- absolutism, OTHERS are not in accordance with the scientific practice. But both items are connected in his writings. You see the idea of THE system -- optimum etc. seems to be metaphysically approached, but the story of the universal laws perhaps only an objected application of some calculus. Should he connect it with the WORLD system, then it would be metaphysical, too. \neueseite{} 

In your language: EITHER I give Popper\IN{\popper} the OPTIMUM-SYSTEM interpretation, where he speaks of the importance of negative instances -- then I reject the whole approach,

OR -- I speak only of the application of a calculus principle then I reject the application only.

We know from experience, that very often the metaphysical jump starts, where a mere CALCULUS approach has been regarded as an experiential statement, a world-statement e.\,g.

I think Popper\IN{\popper} being metaphysician proper. You never answered my ERKENNTNIS article\fnEE{Neurath, ,,Pseudorationalismus der Falsifikation``.} in your letters, only in general terms.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Darüber haben wir doch ausführlich gesprochen, glaube ich.}}.}

POPPER\IN{\popper}\fnEE{Zitate aus Popper, \textit{Logik der Forschung}.} page 6 e.\,g. speaks of ``strengen Nachprüfungen'', as if any negative instance would be \uline{per se} sufficiently ``streng''. You always can assume, that the negative instance will be weakened afterwards as you may weaken a positive instance. This assumption that the inequality\fnA{\original{unequality}} starts here is not based on anything experiential.

p. 9\quad he fights the intention to base all scientific statements on observation-statements as ``induction logic''\ldots

p. 11\quad ``wir vermuten, daß wissenschaftliche Forschung, psychologisch gesehen, ohne einen \ldots\ wenn man will `metaphysischen'  Glauben an manchmal h\"{o}chst unklare theoretische Ideen wohl gar nicht m\"{o}glich ist.'' WHY ``GLAUBEN''?

Then

 ``jenes System, das wir `empirische Wissenschaft' nennen, soll aber nur die \uline{eine} `wirkliche Welt', die `Welt unserer Erfahrungswirklichkeit' darstellen.''

I AM JUST FIGHTING THAT AS A METAPHYSICAL SENTENCE. THE ONE REALITY.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Nein; Poppers Formulierungen enthalten keinen metaphysischen Realismus; seine Beschreibung ist auf keinen Fall metaphysisch; die Frage ist nur, ob es eine adäquate Darstellung des wissenschaftlichen Verfahrens ist. Mir scheint: in manchen Punkten rigider als Neuraths.}}.}

``ausgezeichnet `unsere Erfahrungswelt'\,'' I speak of pluristatements and therefore I see no way how to reach THE ONE WORLD, or THE ONE PREFERRED SYSTEM OF STATEMENTS.

I should like to learn from you, what you say about that. I think Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} fought sufficiently the ONE REAL WORLD\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Wirklich? Nicht nur gegen die Plancksche unerfahrbare Welt?}}.} besides the MANY POSSIBLE WORLDS, I myself and he and Duhem\IN{\duhem} and Poincar\'{e}\IN{\poincare} belong together, we are only more consistent than Duhem\IN{\duhem} and Poincar\'{e}\IN{\poincare} -- I think so.

p. 13\quad ``\textit{Ein empirisch-wissenschaf\ekl{tliches} System\fnAmargin{Ksl. am Seitenende \original{\textsp{Hierzu macht Popper Fußnote (3), die auf verwandte Auffassungen bei \uline{Frank} und Dubislav hinweist. Hiermit stimmen doch wohl ziemlich alle Wissenschaftler überein!}}.} mu\ss{} an der Erfahrung scheitern k\"{o}nnen.}'' (Since no EXACTNESS exists in experiential complexes of statements, but only in CALCULUS, what does this sentence intend according to your opinion?)\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Das gehört doch zu den Grundprinzipien des Empirismus!}}.}

p. 15\quad ``Beziehung zwischen Basissätzen und den Wahrnehmungserlebnisse\ekl{n}'' -- that is Schlick's\IN{\schlick} story with all its difficulties\fnAmargin{Ksl. am Seitenende \original{\textsp{Hier hast Du wieder \uline{sehr unaufmerksam gelesen}! Dies ist im Gegenteil eine \uline{Kritik von Popper} an der Wittgenstein-\uline{Schlickschen} Auffassung über Wahrnehmungserlebnisse!}}.} I criticized in a particular article.

p. 17\quad ``der die Versuchsanordnung nach Vorschrift aufbaut''.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Absurd! Soll es also überhaupt keine Anweisungen zu Versuchen geben?!}}.} ALWAYS place and time are different, therefore the ``ceteris paribus'' always questionable. 

p.~18 ``intersubjektiv\fnA{\original{intersubjectiv}} nachprüfbar'' \ldots{} There are many statements, we may call ``empiricist'', because combinable with obser\-vation-statements, but not ``assayable'' in the way, Popper\IN{\popper} thinks. You agree with me, I think so, on this point. \neueseite{} 

p. 22\quad ``Methodenlehre nicht empirische Wissenschaft'' \ldots\ What you say about that? \fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Hierin stimme ich Popper zu; aber ich sage gegen Popper: Methodenlehre ist Logik.}}.}

p. 28\quad ``spezifische und numerische Allgemeinheit''. That belongs to the existence\hbox{\ekl{-}}formulations and the every\ekl{-}formulation by Russell\IN{\russellkurz}. Why not in principle speak within the empiricist part of a science only of ``numerische Allgemeinheit'' and what is more put into the calculus.

\textkritik{p.~33}\fnA{Hsl. Einschub.} ``Universelle Es-gibt-Sätze sind nicht falsifizierbar. Wir werden deshalb sie \ldots\ als nichtempirisch (`metaphysisch') bezeichnen müssen.''\fnEE{Korrekt und vollständig lautet dieses Zitat aus Popper, \textit{Logik der Forschung}, 33: ,,Universelle Es-gibt-Sätze hingegen sind nicht falsifizierbar:	Kein besonderer Satz (kein Basissatz) kann mit dem universellen	Es-gibt-Satz: ,Es gibt weiße Raben` in logischem Widerspruch stehen. (Nur ein Allsatz kann einem solchen Satz widersprechen.)	Wir werden deshalb auf Grund unseres Abgrenzungskriteriums die universellen Es-gibt-Sätze als nichtempirisch (,metaphysisch`) bezeichnen müssen.``} JUST THAT IS THE POINT. In my notes, you find the remark ``PLEASE''.

I can bring forward heaps of examples, that one starts with such predictions, hypotheses upon ``we shall find \ldots'' and then we find, what we tried to find \ldots\ just that seems to be extraordinary empiricist \ldots\ what you think about it? Usually, like a lawyer you will belittle all these sentences,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Auch \uline{Deine} Formulierungen behandle ich mit Nachsicht, sonst müßte ich die Mehrzahl ablehnen.}}.} but then I do not know, for what purpose Popper\IN{\popper} wrote the whole book, if not, for maintaining just these points. He is not the only ANTI\ekl{-}SCIENTIFIC person, who starts from EXACTNESS, fighting common sense empiricism as I suggest.

p. 60\quad ``beobachtbar nicht psychologisch'' -- I do not know how to make head or tail of that.

p. 63\quad ``fast immer die experimentelle FALSIFIKATION einer als bewährt anerkannten Theorie, die den Fortschritt erzwingt -- also wieder die von der Theorie geleitete Nachprüfung.'' I think Popper\IN{\popper} made this statement without looking into the history of the sciences. Usually hypotheses are so vague in some points, that one does not even know how to ``disconfirm'' them. Some ``aberrations'' one just bears, others not \ldots\ usually NEW CORRELATIONS APPEAR, NOT COVERED UP TO NOW, not contradicted by the theories in action. Etc. \ldots\ it is a long story. Do you think this statement by Popper\IN{\popper} is in accordance with the history of the sciences?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja, oft.}}.}

``Zufallsentdeckungen'' \ldots{}  
p. 67\quad ``Prüfbarkeits- oder Falsifizierbarkeitsgrad''. You know\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{nein}}.} my objections to that. What you think about it?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Das ist nicht Falsifikationsgrad oder Konfir\unsicher{mations}grad! (den lehnt Popper ab! p.~199)}}.}

p. 199\quad ``Wir betrachten also im allgemeinen eine \ldots\ intersubj\ekll{ektiv} nachprüfbare Falsifikation als endgültig; darin eben drückt sich die Asymmetrie zwischen Verifi\ekll{kation} und Fals\ekll{ifikation} aus.''\fnEE{Korrekt und vollständig lautet dieses Zitat aus Popper, \textit{Logik der Forschung}, 199: ,,Wir betrachten	also im allgemeinen eine (methodisch entsprechend gesicherte) intersubjektiv nachprüfbare Falsifikation als endgültig; darin eben drückt sich die Asymmetrie zwischen Verifikation und Falsifikation der Theorien aus.``}

p. 206\quad ``experimentum crucis'' \ldots\medskip



What do you say about all that. Do you think it is in accordance with observation-statements in which scientists appear going on with scientific research with ``definitely'' killed theories -- oh my dear, what a vision \ldots

Again, as long as we remain within the negative and positive instances, I REJECT THE STATEMENTS, AS FAR AS HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES IS CONCERNED, but as far as these\fnA{\original{this}} assumptions are connected with the ONE WORLD, I drop the expression as such, ``isolated'' -- ``metaphysical''.

I should appreciate it very much, if you asked Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp}\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Frank beantwortet keine Briefe (und selbst im Gespräch kann man schwer seine Meinung erfahren; gewöhnlich antwortet er evasiv.)}}.} in a letter about the expressions mentioned page 5 [\pagerefcn{pagefiveofyourletter}] by you, as challenged by me. Of course I should suggest to avoid in CAREFUL ANALYSIS ``fact'', ``error'', ``explanation'' -- \neueseite{}\zzz Of course I am against the expression ``explanation'' because we -- that is the Mach\IN{\mach} school, if you would use this term, -- Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp}, etc. try to avoid ``explanation'' as something besides finding correlations.\fnE{Mach über Erklärung ???} You know the discussion about ``Erklärung'' and Kirchhoff's\IN{\kirchhoff} statement on ``description''.\fnEE{,,Die Mechanik ist die Wissenschaft von der Bewegung; als ihre Aufgabe bezeichnen wir: die in der Natur vor sich gehenden Bewegungen \textit{vollständig} und \textit{auf die einfachste Weise} zu beschreiben.`` (Kirchhoff, \textit{Vorlesungen über mathematische Physik. Mechanik}, Erste Vorlesung, §~1).} Of course it would be pedantic always to avoid the term ``explanation'' but I personally should dislike to use the term as the heading of scientific analysis as such. Of course ``description'' may involve, what Stebbing\IN{\stebbing} calls ``constructive description'' or whatever, but it has been just a success, as we think, that Kirchhoff\IN{\kirchhoff} lead us away from the ``Erklärung'' (``explanation'') to the correlation point of view. I should suggest that Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} discusses that with you, Morris\IN{\morris} and Feigl\IN{\feigl}. I cannot think, that Feigl's\IN{\feigl} point of view is chained to the dangerous term ``explanation'' which just indicated through decades, what we are fighting. I think so. Occasionally using the term ``explanation'' is not of importance. I think it is SERIOUS. Of course, if Feigl\IN{\feigl} insists I should not prevent him going on, we are in a free republic of scientists, but I should make it a condition that at least Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} together with you, Morris\IN{\morris} will talk over the matter with Feigl\IN{\feigl}. Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} knows the discussion in all details. I know many statements in Pearson\IN{\pearson} and other people who mean something for us, just supporting our Kirchhoff\IN{\kirchhoff}.

I do not use the term ``method'', because it becomes often a very metaphysical implication, perhaps scientific technique would be better, it sounds very concrete.

Yes, the greatest pleasure would \editorstr{it}\zzz be to have a long talk and correspondence about \uline{my manuscript}. But, I have been a little worried by the attitude of the Press, and therefore I tried to avoid any delay. I did not think\fnA{\original{thought}} -- I confess -- of anything else, but the continuation of our Encyclopedia. Now the end of the war is coming and therefore the encyclopedia will be of educational importance now. You see, coming out of the internment, I had to take care of our Visual Education Institute and to prepare everything for that -- we succeeded completely in going on with our work. Then I had to lecture at Oxford University -- of course helping me in making my manuscript but nevertheless I had to look through many books not immediately necessary, the Professor who invited me and attended kindly the lectures is an anthropologist and therefore I spoke more of anthropology as I did usually. I liked it very much, but it needs some time to see how ``functionalism'' goes on, and how the discussion stands just at the moment. Of course I know the main lines by heart. I had to look through the history of anthropology as you had to look another day through the history of philosophy. Then I had to start with reconstructing\fnA{\original{reconstruing}} my manuscript, in Hitler's\IN{\hitler} hands. That is sometimes less pleasant, than starting from scratch. You feel ``I said it SOOOOOO fine'', and then you want to remember your slogans \ldots\ boy, boy. That is not always joy only. But then I started writing and enjoyed it very much and I think I improved many parts. I could go on \neueseite{}\zzz in one style, whereas in Holland I always ``mended'' and ``altered'' already written chapters \ldots\ I had preferred it of course to have your remarks before. Please, look into the last proofs\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(bisher noch nichts bekommen)}}.} I shall get and if you think I should alter some overstatement, please tell me so. I like to be in harmony with you. I have the feeling to continue your Logical Syntax period before you became Tarskisized with some Aristotelian\IN{\aristoteles} flavour, which I detest. I always fear, that you, a calculatory genius, support a kind of possible scholasticism which\fnA{\original{who}} leads away from scientific empiricism. Historically it seems a dangerous strain, as you may judge from Łukasiewicz'\IN{\lukasiewicz} contacts with Thomism etc. I do not want to overstate this point. But, I repeat I feel uneasy.

Please, tell me, how Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} thinks of all that, he is such an empiricist common-sense boy.

You will get the INTERGLOSSA. I shall be interested in your remarks.

Fine, that you and Morris\IN{\morris} agree with Hogben's\IN{\hogben} collaboration. Let us hope it will be some fine piece of work. He is sometimes strange in his formulations -- let us hope the best. He is clever and an empiricist interested in language, but in a different way than\fnA{\original{as}} we are.

I do not know anything about Waismann\IN{\waismann}, but that he teaches Philosophy. Suicide reason? We only know, that certain mental difficulties appeared some time ago before she committed suicide.

Thanks for the snapshot. I should like a snapshot which includes Ina\IN{\ina}. When we shall be together again, surrounded by fruit juice tins. Grape fruit juice etc \ldots\ Now we have much pleasure in eating and drinking oranges and lemons. You remember the oranges arrived together with time bombs. Now they removed the time bombs and we got the oranges. Food is excellent and the British are fine. We have more and more acquaintances and feel wholly at home. Less tensions than in Austria or in other countries.

I should like, if you would\fnA{\original{did}} take care in your writings on probability, degree of confirmation etc., of the distinction between CALCULUS and EXPERIENTIAL statements. Probability seems to be a pure calculus term and the degree of confirmation seem\ekl{s} perhaps only possible within the framework of a MODEL, not within a concrete theory. But, of course, the results may allow us some applications. Duhem\IN{\duhem} tried to show what types of formulas cannot be applied to physics, and I think similar remarks could be made always.

We wait for the collection of photographs, you promised to send. We are in good health, happy and active. Everything succeeds up to now. We always wish that all our friends would be in a similar position. We do not like to know friends being in difficult situations, ill, sorry, or something like that. How limited is our power to do something for friends.

Now we, as Austrians, shall become sooner or later co-belligerents, we hope so. Kind regards from both of us to both of you
}

\grussformel{Yours ever,\\Neurath}\Apagebreak

\ebericht{Brief, Dsl., 8 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846786}{RC 102-55-08 (msl. RC 102-55-05 -- ohne Annotationen, mit hsl. Vermerk \original{Original (Copy by Air)} und ksl. \original{bekommen 9.5.} --, weiterer Dsl. ON 223)}; Briefkopf: hsl. \original{Air copy}, msl. \original{1\textsuperscript{st} April, 44}, ksl. \original{Luftpost, bekommen 5.\,5.\,44}.}