Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T13:28:29.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carnap's Metrical Conventionalism versus Differential Topology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Thomas Mormann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geometry was a main source of inspiration for Carnap's conventionalism. Taking Poincaré as his witness, Carnap asserted in his dissertation Der Raum ([1922] 1978) that the metrical structure of space is conventional while the underlying topological structure describes ‘objective’ facts. With only minor modifications he stuck to this account throughout his life. The aim of this paper is to disprove Carnap's contention by invoking some classical theorems of differential topology. It is shown that his metrical conventionalism is indefensible for mathematical reasons. This implies that the relation between topology and geometry cannot be conceptualized as analogous to the relation between the meaning of a proposition and its expression in some language as the logical empiricists used to say.

Type
History of Philosophy of Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 814 - 825
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carnap, Rudolf ([1922] 1978), Der Raum: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftslehre. Reprint of dissertation. (Berlin: Kant-Studien, Ergänzungsheft, n. 56.) Liechtenstein: Topos Verlag.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1963), “Reply to Grünbaum”, in Schilpp, Paul S. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Chicago: Open Court, 952–958.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1966), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1961), Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1999), Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Marvin J. (1976), Lectures on Algebraic Topology. Reading, MA: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf (1963), “Carnap’s Views on the Foundations of Geometry”, in Schilpp, Paul S. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Chicago: Open Court, 599–684.Google Scholar
Hicks, Noel J. (1971), Notes on Differential Geometry. London: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (1996), “Relativity, Eindeutigkeit, and Monomorphism: Rudolf Carnap and the Development of the Categoricity Concept in Formal Semantics,” in Giere, Ronald N. and Richardson, Alan W. (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 115–164.Google Scholar
James, Ian (1999), Topologies and Uniformities. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kervaire, Maurice (1960), “A Manifold Which Does Not Admit Any Differentiable Structure”, A Manifold Which Does Not Admit Any Differentiable Structure 34:257–270.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Graham (1994), The Shape of Space, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951), “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Two Dogmas of Empiricism 60:20–43.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1966), “Carnap and Logical Truth”, in The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. New York: Random House, 100–125.Google Scholar
Ryckman, Thomas (1996), “Einstein Agonists”, in Giere, Ronald N. and Richardson, Alan W. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 165–209.Google Scholar
Wolf, Joseph A. (1967), Spaces of Constant Curvature. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar