What is operations research? What is sufficiently new about it to constitute it a “new science”? And how is it related to philosophy?

1. What it is. MOR's definition, based on Kittel's, runs as follows:

Operations research is a scientific method of providing executive departments with a quantitative basis for decisions regarding the operations under their control (7: 1.)

It has been tacitly assumed that certain fundamental “laws” of science have the same meaning and significance in the different scientific disciplines. Outside of quantum physics the law of causality was regarded as such a concept which was most generally applicable in the description of the systems of nature. However, the role of causality in recent research in biology seems not quite clear. There an explanation of the specific properties of biological systems does not assume the form of a simple law such as a mathematical expression relating different states of one and the same system. Rather it is attempted to show how the properties of the system as a whole are established by the specific interaction of the parts of the system.

The so-called “mind-brain” problem affords the greatest opportunity for the cooperation of philosophy and science in the advancement of knowledge. In this paper we will outline pertinent facts already learned about the human mind from neurological disciplines, and, using some hypotheses from outstanding workers in neurobiology, we will relate this material to some important philosophical problems. Our proposal is to examine these problems in the light of knowledge gathered from the scientific disciplines, and we hope to demonstrate how this method may eventually clarify some of the confusion and suggest certain solutions.

In this paper I wish to contrast briefly one of the later developments in philosophy, the philosophy of the concrete, with an archaic mode of thought and then to show how certain defects in each were avoided in the development of the scientific method.

To this date Roger Bacon remains one of the controversial and colorful figures in the history of empirical science. This paper is an attempt to ascertain his views regarding the nature and function of empirical science and to compare his writings on this topic with those of the more famous Francis Bacon. The ground for comparison is the fact that both men have often been cast in the same role in the history of science; i.e., they have both been acclaimed as the first in the western world to emphasize and bring out the importance of experimental method in the accumulation of knowledge. In this connection Francis, of the sixteenth century, has long been acknowledged as the father of the experimental method in preference to Roger, of the thirteenth century. In effect, therefore, this paper probes the relative merits of the claims for each thinker.

It is the objective of this paper to point out that discussions about cause and effect, and particularly those which bear upon their temporal relationship, are often blurred by failure to make use of the time-honored distinction between transeunt and immanent (also called “extrinsic” and “intrinsic”) causes. Transeunt causes are in evidence whenever we discern two systems, S1 and S2, spatially separated (at least in the beginning of the process), but locked in interaction. In this perspective, cotemporaneous changes can be asserted both of S1 and S2. S1 has an effect on S2, and vice versa. Both effects take place simultaneously but are, as a rule, of different nature. Whether we read the causal relationship from S1, as the cause, to the changes of S2, as the effect, or the other way, from S2 to S1, depends on nothing more objective than the momentary direction of our interest. Immanent causes get into focus whenever we compare the internal conditions C1 and C2 which characterize a system S0 at two different moments t1 and t2. If t1 is earlier than t2, there is a sense in which we can say that C1 is a cause, and C2 its effect.

In the interesting discussion between Margenau (1) and Werkmeister (2) a baffling dilemma arises:

The writer, who—as a positivist—cannot accept a transcendental reality, as Werkmeister seemingly does, is not disturbed by a multitude of realities. He identifies reality with the most familiar and most generalized cognition. As such it varies with the mechanism of cognition and with the type and degree of integration.