Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T19:12:19.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Positivism and the Pragmatic Theory of Observation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Thomas Oberdan*
Affiliation:
Clemson University

Extract

The most influential critique of the Logical Positivists’ analysis of scientific observation was posed by Paul Feyerabend in his classic essay, “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”. Feyerabend countered the later Positivist conception with his so-called ‘Pragmatic Theory of Observation’ which was founded on two ideas. The first is that observation reports are ‘theory-laden’, in the sense that they are always interpreted in the light of the best current theory and are subject to reinterpretation when one theory succeeds another. Feyerabend traced the development of this idea in the early writings of the Positivists, especially Rudolf Carnap, in the classic discussion of protocol sentences. In that context, Feyerabend finds that the theory-ladenness of observation leads inexorably to the second idea of the Pragmatic Theory, that what counts as an observation report does not depend on either its empirical content or its logical form, but on its causal or pragmatic features.

Type
Part I. Logical Empiricism
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

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

Ayer, A.J., (ed.) (1959) Logical Positivism. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1934) The Unity of Science. Black, M., trans. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1987) “On Protocol Sentences,Creath, R. and Nollan, R., trans. Nous 21, 457470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936) “Testability and Meaning,Philosophy of Science. Vol. III, pp. 420-471 and Vol. IV, pp. 140.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1937) The Logical Syntax of Language. Smeaton, A., trans. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1939) Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942) Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1949) “Truth and Confirmation,Feigl, H., tr. in Feigl, H. and Sellars, W. (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts pp. 119127.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956) “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts,” in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., eds. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume I. (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press), pp. 3876.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963a) “Intellectual Autobiography,” in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Schillp, P. ( ed.). LaSalle: Open Court, pp. 384.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963b) “Replies and Systematic Expositions,” in The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Schillp, P. (ed.). LaSalle: Open Court, pp. 8591013.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (UP) Unpublished Papers. Archives for Scientific Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Libraries.Google Scholar
Coffa, J.A., (1976) “Carnap’s Sprachanschauung Circa 1932,” in PSA 1976, vol. 2, Asquith, P., and Suppe, F. (eds.). Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 205241.Google Scholar
Coffa, J.A., (1987) “Carnap, Tarski, and the Search for Truth,Nous 21: 547572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creath, R. (1987) “Some Remarks on ‘Protocol Sentences’,Nous 21: 471-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K (1981). Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1968) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1979) Philosophical Papers. Vol. II. Mulder, H. and v. d. Velde-Schlick, B. (eds.) Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar