What one is acquainted with has always been important for the rejection or acceptance of any ontological description. Yet the relevance of acquaintance to ontology has not always been clearly stated. Some philosophers have held that they were acquainted with the simple entities of ontological analysis. They also held that if they were not acquainted with such entities, their analysis would be inadequately supported. In this paper I argue that acquaintance with ontological simples cannot be a reason for accepting or rejecting any ontological analysis. At the same time, I examine what I believe to be the relevance of acquaintance to ontological description.

“Of Minds and Molecules” attempts to show the difficulties in mental-state brain-state monism. By exploring the differences in meaning between mental-state sentences and brain-state sentences, and by analysing the implications of the theory of the molecular composition of matter, a kind of dualism is arrived at that no scientist should feel uncomfortable with. It is a dualism without mental substance but it does not deprive mental states of their uniqueness. Arguments are given for the propriety of asserting causal connections and dependency relations between mental states and molecular states of the brain.

In this paper, I shall examine attempts to furnish formal models for deductive scientific explanation. All such attempts have had certain defects. The most serious of these defects is to be found in the fact that the extant models seem to be formally restrictive in ways that do not allow any obvious generalization of their conditions which will encompass the full range of all those scientific explanations which must be considered plausible candidates for translation into deductive models.

After several decades during which formalization has flourished it now becomes possible to detect its shortcomings. A definition of formalization is given at the outset. It is next shown that the main justification of formalization as making explicit the form of a proof has serious difficulties. An important shortcoming is found in the fact that many validation procedures in logic and mathematics are not adequately represented deductively. Several such procedures relating to the validation of logical and mathematical sentences are examined. It is concluded that formalization is materially inadequate.

According to Hempel, historians do not offer full-blown explanations. Rather, they typically present explanation-sketches which need filling out. On his account,

Consider a red circle, and suppose it is a paradigmatic thing. Some philosophers maintain that a thing is ontologically analyzable into a particular exemplifying properties, those properties truly ascribed to the thing by the customary words. Our red circle, then, consists of a particular, say a; two properties, red and circle; and exemplification, a tie tying a, red, and circle into “the red circle.” Upon this analysis, a is bare, i.e., not re-recognizable as such, whereas red and circle are natured, i.e., not bare, and, further, are universal, i.e., they may be exemplified by several particulars (or, somewhat differently, they may be in several things).

At the Second Annual Meeting of the New York University Institute of Philosophy convened to consider the scientific status of psychoanalysis, Professor John Hospers was one of the few participating philosophers who undertook to defend the scientific status of psychoanalysis against the cogent criticisms of his fellow philosophers. In this paper I shall examine Hospers’ defense, “Philosophy and Psychoanalysis”, as it appears in the published proceedings of the meeting [12] and in the process of so doing I shall attempt to demonstrate that Hospers (a) misunderstood the critique of his opponents, (b) argued invalidly on several crucial issues and (c) neglected to take into account the possibility of alternative explanations.

W. V. O. Quine's well-known attack upon the analytic-synthetic distinction is held to affect only one of the two species of analytic statements he distinguishes. In particular it is not directed at and does not affect the so-called logical truths. In this paper the scope of Quine's attack is extended so as to embrace the logical truths as well. It is shown that the unclarifiability of the notion of ‘synonymy’ deprives us not only of “analytic statements that are obtainable from logical truths by the replacement of synonyms with synonyms” but of “logical truths” themselves.

In [6] I tried to show how an objection to “the nominalist's” analysis of (a) “This is red” and (b) “That is red” on the basis of “the doctrine of common names” might be overcome. The objection is that “the nominalist,” attempting to analyze (a) and (b) by construing the pronouns in these sentences as two different proper names and “red” as a common name, is forced thereby to construe the copula in both sentences as the “is” of identity, and hence (it is claimed) this and that are identical, i.e., that there is only one red spot and not two. I attempted to show that by using Leśniewski's original axiom of ontology “the nominalist” could construe the pronouns in (a) and (b) as proper names, and “red” as a common name without taking the copula to express identity; he would not be forced to identify this with that.

Carnap gives a definition for a comparative concept of confirmation. For it he uses the notation “MC(h, e, h′, e′).” His defined notation is intended to be an explicatum for the explicandum: “the hypothesis h is confirmed by the evidence e equally strongly or more strongly than h′ by e′” ([1], p. 428).

In his article “Reflexive Predictions” in a recent issue of this Journal [1], Professor Roger C. Buck refers to our theorem concerning correct public prediction of economic and, in general, social events [2]. Unfortunately he misunderstands the nature of our theorem. He begins by stipulating the infinite regress which originally led to the belief that correct public prediction in the social sciences might be impossible: the forecaster who attempts to take into account the agent's reaction to his public prediction, finds his adjusted public prediction again falsified by the agent's reaction to it, and so on ad infinitum [3]. Professor Buck then makes an admittedly tempting mistake. He argues that, provided the sequence of public predictions—each one adjusted for the agent's reaction to its predecessor—converges towards some value, correct public prediction is possible: at the end of a sequence of falsified predictions the forecaster, as it were, catches up with the agent.

In a recent paper,[3], Harold T. Walsh has argued that (1) Whewell's commentators have in the past misunderstood his use of “necessary,” that (2) Whewell's theory of necessary truth developed only gradually through thirty years of scholarly activity, finally finding a “mature” expression in Philosophy of Discovery, published in 1860, and that (3) a proper understanding of Whewell's “mature” theory of necessary truth leads to a fundamental re-interpretation of the nature of the Ideas and of their role in scientific systems—that the meaning of “necessity” as Whewell expresses it in Philosophy of Discovery leads, in short, to a new and more illuminating reading of his philosophy of inductive science. It is my view that the three propositions asserting Walsh's view are incorrect, expecially the two important and crucial ones (2) and (3). In what follows, I shall state what seem to me to be the grounds for rejecting Walsh's view that Whewell's theory of necessity was not arrived at before 1860, and hence for rejecting his interpretation of some basic aspects of Whewell's philosophy of science.

Adolph Grünbaum has argued that Duhem's conventionalism is false for the case of Euclidean geometry ([6], [7], [8]). According to Duhem, any portion of a physical theory can be preserved from falsifiability by providing suitable modifications elsewhere in the theory. Grünbaum argues that physical theory is composed of two parts: A geometrical part H, and a physical part A. For his test case—Euclidean geometry—he contends that by a suitable specification of A, a falsification of H is possible; i.e., H can be rendered “accessible to experimental ascertainment in isolation from other physical regularities.”

J. J. Katz in “The Problem of Induction and its Solution” argues that not only a validation but also a vindication of induction is impossible. In the course of his argument a number of interesting issues arise about what is actually required for a satisfactory vindication. The aim of those who have sought to provide a vindication for induction has been to show that it is the most satisfactory means for forming expectations about the future; they have accepted the impossibility of showing that induction must, or will probably, lead to true predictions. Feigl gives a general characterisation of vindication as an “argument concerning means with respect to ends” and contrasts it to validation which is a justification of a knowledge claim by establishing it as true or probably true. We cannot validate the rules of induction but we can give a vindication of the adoption of these rules ([1], pp. 136-7). Katz accepts Feigl's distinction in general terms but proposes some modifications to meet certain defects which he believes to be present in the latter's account. Katz distinguishes two senses of vindication, an “expediency vindication” which “establishes a justificandum as a suitable means,” while a “preferability vindication” “establishes the justificandum as the preferable means for achieving the end.” An expediency vindication shows that the proposed means is a sufficient condition for achieving the end in view, but it need not establish this means as necessary to achieve this end. A preferability vindication will establish the means as necessary to achieve this end in the best way ([2], pp. 26-8). He then proceeds as follows: “an argument which demonstrates that a justificandum is a necessary condition—but only a necessary condition—for achieving the relevant end is not a real vindication.” He holds that the vindication of a certain means must show at least that it will achieve the end sought, and preferably that it is the best way of achieving this end ([2], p. 28).

The rapidity with which new sciences are being formed and the older ones are becoming further specialized calls for a complementary effort to interrelate the sciences. A genuine synthetization must be completely open to all future discoveries and developments within science. Such an openness would be possible only if scientific understanding possesses certain invariable patterns according to which the synthetization could be constructed. Lonergan's Insight (New York, 1958) seems to have uncovered these basic and irrevisable patterns. Not only do they demonstrate the complementarity of classical and statistical methods but the isomorphic Emergent Probability operative in world-process may well provide the framework for an open synthetization. In the present essay this possibility is demonstrated by interrelating, according to it, certain generic fields of the scientific endeavor, from physics to cultural anthropology.

In several recent publications, Professor Adolf Grünbaum has inveighed against the conventionalism of writers like Einstein, Poincaré, Quine and especially Duhem. Specifically, Grünbaum has assailed the view that a single hypothesis can never be conclusively falsified. Grünbaum claims that the conventionalists’ insistence on the immunity of hypotheses from falsification is neither logically valid nor scientifically sound. Directing the weight of his argument against Duhem, Grünbaum launches a two-pronged attack. He insists, first, that conclusive falsifying experiments are possible, suggesting that Duhem's denial of such experiments is a logical non-sequitur. He then proceeds to show that, more than being merely possible, crucial falsifying experiments have occurred in physics. I do not intend to make a logical point against Grünbaum's critique so much as an historical and exegetical one. Put briefly, I believe that he has misconstrued Duhem's views on falsifiability and that the logical blunder which he discusses should not be ascribed to Duhem, but rather to those who have made Duhem's conventionalism into the doctrine which Grünbaum attacks. Whether there are any writers who accept the view he imputes to Duhem, or whether he is exploiting “straw-men” to give weight to an otherwise trivial argument is an open question. For now, I simply want to suggest that his salvos are wrongly directed against Duhem.

One of the fundamental problems in the fields of inductive logic and the philosophy of science is the one concerning inferences or projections containing so-called “grue-like” or “pathological” predicates. This problem was first put into sharp focus by Nelson Goodman, who called it the “new riddle of induction.”

Goodman has shown that the few attempts by others to solve this problem (which appear in the literature) are not adequate. However, very little has been written concerning Goodman's own attempt to solve the problem, namely his theory of entrenchment. The purpose of this article is to show that Goodman's entrenchment theory also is inadequate as a solution to the new riddle of induction. I shall try to do this by presenting two kinds of counterexamples to the entrenchment theory: one kind illustrating a general objection to the theory as a whole ; the other kind, specific objections to particular (vital) parts of the theory.