Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 February 2024
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Interpreting CarnapCritical Essays, pp. 286 - 307Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Primary Sources
Carnap, R. (1926/2019). “Physikalische Begriffsbildung/Physical Concept Formation.” In CW1, 339–424.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1927). “Eigentliche und uneigentliche Begriffe.” Symposion: Philosophische Zeitschrift für Forschung und Aussprache 1: 355–374.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1929/2004). “Von Gott und Seele. Scheinfragen in Metaphysik und Theologie.” In Mormann, Th. (ed.), Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 49–63.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1930/2004). “Die Alte und die Neue Logik.” In Mormann, Th. (ed.), Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 63–80.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1931/1983). “The Logicist Foundations of Mathematics.” In Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–52.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1932/2004). “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache.” In Mormann, Th. (ed.), Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie und andere metaphysikkritische Schriften. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 81–110.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1934). “Theoretische Fragen und praktische Entscheidungen.” Natur und Geist 2: 257–260.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1934/2013). The Unity of Science. Translated by Max Black. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1935). Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1935/1937). “Ein Gültigkeitskriterium für die Sätze der klassischen Mathematik.” Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 42: 163–190. Translated into English in LSL, §34a–i.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936). “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3 (4): 419–471; 4 (1): 1–40. (T&M)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936). “Über die Einheitssprache der Wissenschaft. Logische Bemerkungen zum Projekt einer Enzyklopädie.” Acte du Congrès international de philosophie scientifique, Sorbonne, Paris 1935, 2. Unité de la science. Actualités scientifiques et industrielles 389: 60–70.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1936/1949). “Truth and Confirmation.” In Feigl, H. and Sellars, W. (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 119–127.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1937). “Logic.” In Douglas, E. et al. (eds.), Factors Determining Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 107–118.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1938). “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science.” In Carnap, R., Morris, Ch., and Neurath, O. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 42–62.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1939). Foundations of Logic and Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (FLM)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1942). Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (IS)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1943). Formalization of Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (FoL)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1945a). “The Two Concepts of Probability.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5: 513–532.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1945b). “On Inductive Logic.” Philosophy of Science 12 (2): 72–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947a). “Probability as a Guide in Life.” Journal of Philosophy 44: 141–148.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947b). “On the Application of Inductive Logic.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8 (1): 133–148.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1947/1956). Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (M&N)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue International de Philosophie 4 (11): 20–40. (ESO)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (LFP)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1952). The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (CIM)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1955a). “Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages.” Philosophical Studies 6 (3): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1956). “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts.” In Feigl, H. and Scriven, M. (eds.), The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 38–76.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1958). “Beobachtungssprache und theoretische Sprache.” Dialectica 12 (3–4): 236–248.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1959/2000). “Rudolf Carnap’s Theoretical Concepts in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31 (1): 151–172.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962). “The Aim of Inductive Logic.” In Nagel, E. et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 303–318.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (LFP2)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963). “Intellectual Autobiography.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 3–84. (IA)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963). “Replies and Systematic Expositions.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 859–1013. (RSE)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1966). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Basic Books. (IPoS)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1967). Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin-Schlachtensee: Weltkreis-Verlag [1928]. Quoted from the English translation, The Logical Structure of the World. Translated by R. A. George. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Aufbau)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1971). “A Basic System of Inductive Logic.” In Carnap, R. and Jeffrey, R. C. (eds.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume I. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 35–165.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1977). Two Essays on Entropy. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1990). “Quine on Analyticity [orig. 1952].” In Creath, R. (ed.), Dear Carnap, Dear Van. The Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related Work. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 427–432.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (2000). Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Axiomatik. Edited by Bonk, Th. and Mosterín, J.. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (2019). The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings. Edited by Carus, A. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (CW1)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (2019). Der Raum: Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftslehre / Space: A Contribution to the Theory of Science. In Carus, A. W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., and Schlotter, S. (eds.), The Collected Works of Rudolf Carnap, Volume 1: Early Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 21–171. (Raum)Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (2022a). Tagebücher 1908–1919. Herausgegeben von Christian Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von Brigitta Arden, Brigitte Parakenings, Roman Jordan und Lois M. Rendl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (2022b). Tagebücher 1920–1935. Herausgegeben von Christian Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von Brigitta Arden, Brigitte Parakenings, Roman Jordan und Lois M. Rendl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (in preparation). Tagebücher 1936–1970. Herausgegeben von Christian Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von Brigitta Arden, Philipp Bauer und Brigitte Parakenings. Hamburg: Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Carnap, R., and Bachmann, F. (1936/1981). “On Extremal Axioms.” History and Philosophy of Logic 2: 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R., and Hochkeppel, W. (1993). “Interview mit Rudolf Carnap (1964).” In Rudolf Carnap: Mein Weg in die Philosophie. Übersetzt und mit einem Nachwort sowie einem Interview herausgegeben von Willy Hochkeppel. Stuttgart: Reclam, 133–148.Google Scholar
Carnap, R., and Jeffrey, R. C. (eds.). (1971). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Volume I. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R., Hahn, H., and Neurath, O. (1929/2012). Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis. Edited by Stadler, F. and Uebel, Th.. Vienna; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Abi, B. et al. (2021). “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm.” Physical Review Letters 126: 141801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderton, K. M. (1993). The Limits of Science: A Social, Political, and Moral Agenda for Epistemology in Nineteenth Century Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Andreas, H. (2021). “Theoretical Terms in Science.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theoretical-terms-science/.Google Scholar
Aray, B. (2019). “Louis Couturat, Modern Logic, and the International Auxiliary Language.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (5): 979–1001.Google Scholar
Awodey, S. (2007). “Carnap’s Quest for Analyticity. The Studies in Semantics.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226–247.Google Scholar
Awodey, S., and Carus, A. W. (2001). “Carnap, Completeness, and Categoricity: The Gabelbarkeitssatz of 1928.” Erkenntnis 54 (2): 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awodey, S., and Carus, A. W. (2007). “Carnap’s Dream: Gödel, Wittgenstein, and Logical, Syntax.” Synthese 159 (1): 23–45.Google Scholar
Awodey, S., and Carus, A. W. (2009). “From Wittgenstein’s Prison to the Boundless Ocean. Carnap’s Dream of Logical Syntax.” In Wagner, P. (ed.), Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 79–106.Google Scholar
Awodey, S., and Reck, E. (2002). “Completeness and Categoricity, Part 1: 19th Century Axiomatics to 20th Century Metalogic.” History and Philosophy of Logic 23: 1–30.Google Scholar
Awodey, S., and Reck, E. (2004). Frege’s Lectures on Logic: Carnap’s Student Notes 1910–1914. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Ayer, A. J. (1946/1954). “Freedom and Necessity.” In Philosophical Essays. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 271–284.Google Scholar
Ayer, A. J. (1957). “The Conception of Probability as a Logical Relation.” In Korner, S. (ed.), Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics. New York: Dover, 12–17.Google Scholar
Baccarat, L. (2024). “Neurath’s Anticorrespondentism and Avenarius.” In Damböck, Ch., Friedl, J., and Höfer, U. (eds.), Ways of the Scientific World-Conception. Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath. Amsterdam: Brill-Rodopi.Google Scholar
Beaney, M. (2013). “The Historiography of Analytic Philosophy.” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 30–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaney, M. (2016). “Historiography, Philosophy of History and the Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy.” Journal of the Philosophy of History 10: 211–234.Google Scholar
Beaney, M. (2020). “Two Dogmas of Analytic Historiography.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28: 594–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, J. (2023). Logical Empiricism and Naturalism. Neurath and Carnap’s Meta-theory of Science. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Bergson, H. (1903/1913/1973). An Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by T. E. Hulme. Houndsmills; Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bernays, P. (1967). “Hilbert, D.” In Edwards, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 3. New York: Macmillan, 496–505.Google Scholar
Bohnert, H. G. (1975). “Carnap’s Logicism.” In Hintikka, J. (ed.), Rudolf Carnap: Logical Empiricist. Dodrecht: Reidel, 183–216.Google Scholar
Borsanyi, S. et al. (2021). “Leading Hadronic Contribution to the Muon Magnetic Moment from Lattice QCD.” Nature 393 (April 7): 51–55.Google Scholar
Bright, L. K. (2017). “Logical Empiricists on Race.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 65: 9–18.Google Scholar
Bright, L. K. (2018). “Du Bois’ Democratic Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” Synthese 195 (5): 2227–2245.Google Scholar
Brozek, A. (2022). “Jan Lukasiewicz’s Program of the Logicization of Philosophy: Its Genesis, Content and Realizations.” Synthese. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03699-7.Google Scholar
Brun, G. (2016). “Explication as a Method of Conceptual Re-engineering.” Erkenntnis 81: 1211–1241.Google Scholar
Brun, G. (2020). “Conceptual Re-engineering: From Explication to Reflective Equilibrium.” Synthese 197: 925–954.Google Scholar
Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., and Plunckett, D. (eds.) (2020). Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Ch., Kindel, E., and Walker, S. (eds.) (2013). Isotype: Design and Contexts, 1925–1971. London: Hyphen Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2018). Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, A. (1897). Friedrich Wilhelm Dörpfeld. Aus seinem Leben und Wirken. Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Carus, A. W. (1999). “Carnap, Syntax, and Truth.” In Peregrin, J. (ed.), Truth and Its Nature (If Any). Dordrecht: Springer, 15–35.Google Scholar
Carus, A. W. (2007). Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought: Explication as Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carus, A. W. (2013). “History and the Future of Logical Empiricism.” In Reck, E. (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. London: Palgrave, 261–293.Google Scholar
Carus, A. W. (2019). “Neurath and Carnap on Semantics.” In Cat, J. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), Neurath Reconsidered: New Sources and Perspectives. Cham: Springer, 339–361.Google Scholar
Carus, A.W. (2021). “Werte beim frühen Carnap: Von den Anfängen bis zum Aufbau.” In Damböck, Ch. and Wolters, G. (eds.) Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935. Cham: Springer, 1–18.Google Scholar
Carus, A. W. (2022). “Die religiösen Ursprünge des Nonkognitivismus bei Carnap.” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 143–161.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. (1929/1957). The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume Three: The Phenomenology of Knowledge. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Castelvecchi, D. (2021). “Is the Standard Model Broken? Physicists Cheer Major Muon Result.” Nature (April 7). www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00898-z.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1943). “Review of Carnap’s Introduction to Semantics.” The Philosophical Review 52 (3): 298–304.Google Scholar
Comandon, A., and Ong, P. (2020). “South Los Angeles since the 1960s: Race, Place, and Class.” The Review of Black Political Economy 47 (1): 50–74.Google Scholar
Cote-Meek, S. (2014). Colonized Classrooms – Fernwood Publishing. Winnipeg, MB: Fernwood.Google Scholar
Cournot, A. A. (1843). Exposition de la theorie des chances et des probabilités. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Couturat, L. (1910). Etude sur la Derivation dans la Langue Internationale. Paris: Delagrave.Google Scholar
Couturat, L., and Léau, L. (1903). Histoire de la Langue Universelle. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (1990a). Dear Carnap, Dear Van. The Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related Work. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (1990b). “The Unimportance of Semantics.” In Fine, A., Forbes, M., and Wessels, L. (eds.), PSA 1990, vol. 2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 405–415.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (1996). “Languages without Logic.” In Giere, R. N. and Richardson, A. W. (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 251–265.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (1999). “Carnap’s Move to Semantics: Gains and Losses.” In Wolenski, J. and Köhler, E. (eds.), Alfred Tarski and the Vienna Circle. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 65–76.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (2003). “The Linguistic Doctrine and Conventionality: The Main Argument in ‘Carnap and Logical Truth.’” In Hardcastle, G. L. and Richardson, A. (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 234–256.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (2012). “Before Explication.” In Wagner, P. (ed.), Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 161–174.Google Scholar
Creath, R. (forthcoming). “What Was Carnap Rejecting When He Rejected Metaphysics?” In Baxter, J., Bausman, W., and Lean, O. (eds.), Biological Practice to Scientific Metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Dahms, H.-J. (2004). “Neue Sachlichkeit in the Architecture and Philosophy of the 1920s.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. Chicago: Open Court, 357–376.Google Scholar
Dahms, H-J. (2016). “Carnap’s Early Conception of a ‘System of the Sciences’: The Importance of Wilhelm Ostwald.” In Damböck, Ch. (ed.), Influences on the Aufbau. Cham: Springer, 163–185.Google Scholar
Damböck, Ch. (2022a). “The Politics of Carnap’s Non-cognitivism and the Scientific World-Conception of Left-Wing Logical Empiricism.” Perspectives on Science 30 (4): 493–524.Google Scholar
Damböck, Ch. (2022b). “Carnap, Reichenbach, Freyer. Non-cognitivist Ethics and Politics in the Spirit of the German Youth-Movement.” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 163–180.Google Scholar
Damböck, Ch. (2022c). “Carnap’s Non-cognitivism and His Views on Religion, against the Background of the Herbartian Philosophy of His Grandfather Friedrich Wilhelm Dörpfeld.” In Ramharter, E. (ed.), The Vienna Circle and Religion. Cham: Springer, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damböck, Ch. (2024). “Entscheidungstheoretische, modallogische und metaethische Gesichtspunkte in Carnaps ‘Value Concepts (1958).’” In Ficara, E. et al. (eds.), Revisiting the History and Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Damböck, Ch., and Wolters, G. (2021). (eds.) Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.) (2022). Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Daston, L., and Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
De Morgan, A. (1847). Formal Logic: Or the Calculus of Inference Necessary and Probable. London: Taylor and Walton.Google Scholar
Dea, S. (2019). “Academic Freedom, Scholarly Responsibility and the New Gender Wars.” University Affairs (blog). August 2, 2019.Google Scholar
Dea, S. (2021). “The Evolving Social Purpose of Academic Freedom.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 31 (2): 199–222.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. (2013). Logicism and Its Philosophical Legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Demopoulos, W. (2021). “The Partial Interpretation of Scientific Theories.” In Limbeck-Lilienau, Ch. and Uebel, Th. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism. New York: Routledge, 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devidi, D., and Solomon, G. (1995). “Tolerance and Metalanguages in Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language.” Synthese 103 (1): 123–139.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1971). “Theory of Valuation.” In Neurath, O., Morris, Ch., and Carnap, R. (eds.), Foundations of the Unity of Science II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 379–447.Google Scholar
Dewulf, F. (2017). “Rudolf Carnap’s Incorporation of the Geisteswissenschaften in the Aufbau.” HOPOS 7 (2017), 199–225.Google Scholar
Dewulf, F. (2021). “Carnap’s Opposition to Logic of the Geisteswissenschaften.” In Damböck, Ch., and Wolters, G. (eds.), Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935. Cham: Springer, 55–73.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Th. (2017). “The (Metaphysical) Foundations of Arithmetic?” Noûs 51 (4): 775–801.Google Scholar
Dutilh Novaes, C. (2018). “Carnapian Explication and Ameliorative Analysis: A Systematic Comparison.” Synthese 197: 1011–1034.Google Scholar
Dutilh Novaes, C. (2020). “Carnap Meets Foucault: Conceptual Engineering and Genealogical Investigations.” Inquiry. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1860122.Google Scholar
Dutilh Novaes, C., and Reck, E. (2017). “Carnapian Explication, Formalisms as Cognitive Tools, and the Paradox of Adequate Formalization.” Synthese 194: 195–215.Google Scholar
Ebbs, G. (2017). “Carnap on Ontology.” In Carnap, Quine, and Putnam on Methods of Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44–54.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D. (2020). The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Falk, J. (1999). Women, Language and Linguistics. Three American Stories from the First Half of the Twentieth Century. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feigl, H. et al. (1970). “Homage to Rudolf Carnap.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, XI–LXVI.Google Scholar
Feldbacher-Escamilla, Ch. (2021). “Carnap’s Conditions of Adequacy for Explications and Conceptual Engineering.” Logique et Analyse 256: 487–509.Google Scholar
Flocke, V. (2019). “Carnap’s Defense of Impredicative Definitions.” The Review of Symbolic Logic 12 (2): 372–404.Google Scholar
Forman, P. (1973). “Scientific Internationalism and the Weimar Physicists: The Ideology and Its Manipulation in Germany after World War I.” Isis 64 (2): 151–180.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1884/1980). The Foundations of Arithmetic. Edited and translated by Austin, J. L.. New York: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (1988). “Logical Truth and Analyticity in Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language.” In Aspray, W. and Kitcher, P. (eds.), History and Philosophy of Mathematics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 82–94.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1999). Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2000). A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2006). “Carnap and Quine: Twentieth-century echoes of Kant and Hume” Philosophical Topics 34: 35–58.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2010). “Synthetic History Reconsidered.” In Domski, M. and Dickson, M. (eds.), Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 571–814.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2018). “Carnap’s Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics.” In Reck, E. (ed.), Logic, Philosophy of Mathematics and Their History: Essays in Honor of W. W. Tait. London: College, 141–170.Google Scholar
Friedman, M., and Creath, R. (eds.) (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gabriel, G. (2004). “Carnap Brought Home.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 3–20.Google Scholar
Galison, P. (1990). “Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism.” Critical Inquiry 16 (4), 709–752.Google Scholar
Galison, P. (2016). “Meanings of Scientific Unity: The Law, the Orchestra, the Pyramid, the Quilt and the Ring.” In Kamminga, H. and Somsen, G., (eds.), Pursuing the Unity of Science: Ideology and Scientific Practice from the Great War to the Cold War. London; New York: Routledge, 12–29.Google Scholar
Gandon, S. (2012). Russell’s Unknown Logicism: A Study in the History and Philosophy of Mathematics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
George, A. (1986). “Whence and Whither the Debate between Quine and Chomsky?” Journal of Philosophy 83: 489–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, A. (2011). “Quine’s Philosophical Legacy.” American Philosophical Quarterly 48: 301–304.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. A Theory of Normative Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C., and Eberhardt, F. (2008/2021). “Hans Reichenbach.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/reichenbach/.Google Scholar
Goldfarb, W. (1997). “Semantics in Carnap. A Rejoinder to Alberto Coffa.” Philosophical Topics 25 (2): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldfarb, W., and Ricketts, Th. (1992). “Carnap and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Bell, D. and Vossenkuhl, W. (eds.), Science and Subjectivity. The Vienna Circle and 20th Century Philosophy. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 61–78.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J., and Laks, B. (2019). Battle in the Mind Fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1966). “On the Principle of Total Evidence.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (4): 319–321.Google Scholar
Grattan-Guinness, I. (2000). The Search for Mathematical Roots 1870–1940. Logics, Set Theories and the Foundations of Mathematics from Cantor through Russell to Gödel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J. (2008). Plato’s Ghost: The Modernist Transformation of Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greimann, D. (2007). “Das korrekte Explizieren von Begriffen.” Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 61: 261–282.Google Scholar
Greimann, D. (2012). “A Typology of Conceptual Explications.” Disputation 4 (34): 645–670.Google Scholar
Grelling, K. (1929). “Realism and Logic: An Investigation of Russell’s Metaphysics.” Monist 39: 501–520.Google Scholar
Habgood-Coote, J. (2021). “What’s the Point of Authors?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715539.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1975). The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamami, Y. (2018). “Mathematical Inference and Logical Inference.” The Review of Symbolic Logic 11 (4): 665–704.Google Scholar
Hanson, S. O., and Hendricks, V. F. (eds.) (2018). Introduction to Formal Philosophy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). “Legal Responsibility and Excuses.” In Punishment and Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press, 28–53.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. (2000). “Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be?” Noûs 34 (1): 31–55.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1971/2019). “Instrumentalism in Language Planning.” In Rubin, J. and Jernudd, B. (eds.), Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. An East-West Center Book. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 267–276.Google Scholar
Hegselmann, R. (1979). Normativität und Rationalität. Zum Problem praktischer Vernunft in der Analytischen Philosophie. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Hegselmann, R. (1992). “Einleitung. Einheitswissenschaft: Das positive Paradigma des Logischen Empirismus.” In Schulte, J. and McGuinness, B. (eds.), Einheitswissenschaft. Frankfurt: Main Suhrkamp, 7–23.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, M. (2024). “Between Pietism and Herbartianism: Archaeological Vestiges in Carnap’s Thought.” In Damböck, Ch., Friedl, J., and Höfer, U. (eds.), Ways of the Scientific World-Conception. Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath. Amsterdam: Brill-Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1958). “The Theoretician’s Dilemma.” In Feigl, H., Scriven, M. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 37–98.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1973). “Rudolf Carnap, Logical Empiricist.” Synthese 25 (3/4): 256–268.Google Scholar
Hirsch, E. (2011). Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hiz, H., and Swiggers, P. (1990). “Bloomfield the Logical Positivist.” Semiotica 79: 257–270.Google Scholar
Hofweber, Th. (2016). Ontology and the Ambitions of Metaphysic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. (1943). Interglossa. A Draft of an Auxiliary for a Democratic World Order, Being an Attempt to Apply Semantic Principles to Language Design. Harmondsworth, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Hollinger, D. A. (2011). “The Unity of Knowledge and The Diversity of Knowers: Science as an Agent of Cultural Integration in the United States between the Two World Wars.” Pacific Historical Review 80 (2): 211–230.Google Scholar
Huttegger, S. M. (2017). The Probabilistic Foundations of Rational Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hylton, P. (2014). “Quine’s Naturalism Revisited.” In Harman, G. and Lepore, E. (eds). A Companion to W. V. O. Quine. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 148–162.Google Scholar
Hylton, P. (2019). “Carnap and Quine on Analyticity: The Nature of the Disagreement.” Nous 55: 445–462.Google Scholar
Hylton, P., and Kemp, G. (2019). “Willard Van Orman Quine.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/.Google Scholar
Imlay, T. C. (2016). “International Socialism at War, 1914–1918.” In Imlay, T. (ed.), The Practice of Socialist Internationalism: European Socialists and International Politics, 1914–1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17–48.Google Scholar
“Interim Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom to the Academic Senate, Northern Section, of the University of California.” 1951. University of California.Google Scholar
“It’s Official – The Harper Government Muzzled Scientists. Some Say It’s Still Happening.” 2018. CBC. March 22. www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-muzzled-1.4588913.Google Scholar
Isaacson, D. (2002). “Carnap, Quine and Logical Truth.” In Bell, D. and Vossenkuhl, W. (eds.), Science and Subjectivity. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 100–130.Google Scholar
Jansen, A. (1996). “ISOTYPE and Infographics.” In Nemeth, E. and Stadler, F. (eds.), Encyclopedia and Utopia: The Life and Work of Otto Neurath (1882–1945). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 143–156.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.) (1980). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. II. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1990). The Logic of Decision. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1992). Probability and the Art of Judgement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (1994). “Carnap’s Voluntarism.” In Prawitz, D., Skyrms, B., and Westerståhl, D., eds. Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science IX. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 847–866.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. (2004). Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1925). Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Oslo: H. Aschehong.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1933/2010). “Nature and Art in Language.” In Selected Writings of Otto Jespersen. London: Allen & Unwin, 387–399.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. E. (1924). Logic, Part III: The Logical Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.E. (1932). “Probability: The Deductive and Inductive Problems.” Mind 41: 409–423.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2002). From Whitney to Chomsky. Essays in the History of American Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kamminga, H., and Somsen, G. (eds.) (2016). Pursuing the Unity of Science: Ideology and Scientific Practice from the Great War to the Cold War. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. (1948). “Models of Logical Systems.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 13: 16–30.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. (1955). “Fair Bets and Degree of Confirmation.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 263–273.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. (1956). “A New Approach to Semantics.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 21: 1–21, 149–161.Google Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. (1963). “Carnap’s Theory of Probability and Induction.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 711–738.Google Scholar
Kevles, D. J. “‘Into Hostile Political Camps’: The Reorganization of International Science in World War I.” Isis 62 (1): 47–60.Google Scholar
Koellner, P. (2009). “Carnap on the foundations of logic and mathematics.” https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.645.5922.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Th. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laplace, P.-S. de. (1814/1951). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Lavers, G. (2008). “Carnap, Formalism, and Informal Rigour.” Philosophia Mathematica 3 (16): 4–24.Google Scholar
Lavers, G. (2019). “Hitting a Moving Target: Gödel, Carnap, and Mathematics as Logical Syntax.” Philosophia Mathematica 27 (2): 219–243.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2013). “Scientific Philosophy, Mathematical Philosophy, and All That.” Metaphilosophy 44: 267–275.Google Scholar
Leitgeb, H., and Carus, A. W. (2021). “Rudolf Carnap.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/carnap/.Google Scholar
Lenin, V. I. (1927). Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus. Kritische Bemerkungen über eine reaktionäre Philosophie. Vienna: Verlag für Literatur und Politik.Google Scholar
Leonard, H., and Goodman, N. (1940). “The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 45–55.Google Scholar
Limbeck-Lilienau, C. (2022). “The First Vienna Circle and the Erlangen Conference.” In Uebel, Th. and Limbeck-Lilienau, C. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism. London; New York: Routledge: 99–108.Google Scholar
Löffler, W. (2004). “‘Esperanto. The Feeling of Disgust’: Wittgenstein on Planned Languages.” In Marek, J. C. and Reicher, M. E. (eds.), Papers of the 27th International Wittgenstein Symposium 8–14 August 2004. Erfahrung und Analyse – Experience and Analysis. Kirchberg am Wechsel: ALWS, 209–211.Google Scholar
Longino, H. (1983). “Beyond ‘Bad Science’: Skeptical Reflections on the Value-Freedom of Scientific Inquiry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 8 (1): 7–17.Google Scholar
Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, S. (2014b). “What’s Right with a Syntactic Approach to Theories and Models?” Erkenntnis 79: 1475–1492.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. (2021). “Rudolf Carnap and David Lewis on Metaphysics.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 9 (1): 1–31.Google Scholar
MacLane, S. (1938). “Carnap on Logical Syntax.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 44: 171–176.Google Scholar
Majer, U. (2002). “Hilbert’s Program to Axiomatize Physics and Its Impact on Schlick, Carnap and Other Members of the Vienna Circle.” In Heidelberger, M. and Stadler, F. (eds.), History of Philosophy Science: New Trends and Perspectives. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 9. Dordrect: Springer, 213–224.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marschall, B. (2022). “Carnap’s Philosophy of Mathematics.” Philosophy Compass. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12884.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G., and Feigl, H. (1961). “Why Ordinary Language Needs Reforming.” The Journal of Philosophy 58 (18): 488–498.Google Scholar
McElvenny, J. (2013). “International Language and the Everyday: contact and collaboration between C.K. Ogden, Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (6): 1194–1218.Google Scholar
McElvenny, J. (2018). Language and Meaning in the Age of Modernism: C. K. Ogden and His Contemporaries. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McGill, V. J. (1936). “An Evaluation of Logical Positivism.” Science & Society 1 (1): 45–80.Google Scholar
Menger, K. (1934/1974). Morality, Decisions, and Social Organization: Towards a Logic of Ethics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Menger, K. (1994). Reminiscences of the Vienna Circle and the Mathematical Colloquium. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Mormann, Th. (2007). “Geometrical Leitmotifs in Carnap’s Early Philosophy.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–64.Google Scholar
Morris, S. (2018). “Carnap and Quine: Analyticity, Naturalism, and the Elimination of Metaphysics.” The Monist 10: 394–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, J. Z. (1987). The Other God That Failed. Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1936/1983). “Encyclopedia as ‘Model.’” In Cohen, R. S. and Neurath, M. (eds.), Otto Neurath: Philosophical Papers 1913–1946. Dordrecht: Reidel, 145–458.Google Scholar
Nittle, N. (2019). “Operation Bootstrap: Empowering the African American Community through Entrepreneurship.” KCET. November 19. www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/operation-bootstrap-empowering-the-african-american-community-through-entrepreneurship.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C. (2019). The Origins of Unfairness: Social Categories and Cultural Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, C. K. (1936/1994). “Basic English and Grammatical Reform.” In Gordon, T. W. (ed.), From Bentham to Basic English. London: Routledge, 187–226.Google Scholar
Ouelbani, M. (2005). “Carnap und die Einheit der Wissenschaft.” In Nemeth, E. and Roudet, N. (eds.), Paris–Wien: Enzyklopädien im Vergleich. Dordrecht: Springer, 205–219.Google Scholar
Overbye, D. (2021). “A Tiny Particle’s Wobble Could Upend the Known Laws of Physics.” New York Times, April 7.Google Scholar
Patton, L. (2023). “Whose Dogmas of Empiricism?” In Morris, S. (ed.), The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–131.Google Scholar
PBS SoCal. (n.d.). “Lost LA: Operation Bootstrap.” PBS SoCal. Accessed October 26, 2021. www.pbssocal.org/shows/lost-l-a/clip/operation-bootstrap.Google Scholar
Pincock, Ch. (2005). “A Reserved Reading of Carnap’s Aufbau.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86: 518–543.Google Scholar
Pombo, O. (2011). “Neurath and the Encyclopaedic Project of Unity of Science.” In Symons, J., Pombo, O., and Torres, J. M. (eds.), Otto Neurath and the Unity of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, 59–70.Google Scholar
Potochnik, A., and Yap, A. (2006). “Revisiting Galison’s ‘Aufbau/Bauhaus’ in Light of Neurath’s Philosophical Projects.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37: 469–488.Google Scholar
Price, H. (2009). “Metaphysics after Carnap: The Ghost Who Walks?” In Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 320–346.Google Scholar
Price, H. (2013). Expressivism, Pragmatism, and Representationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1962). “The Analytic and the Synthetic.” In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 358–397.Google Scholar
Queloz, M. (2021). The Practical Origins of Ideas: Genealogy as Conceptual Reverse-Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951a). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60 (1): 20–43.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951b). “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 2: 65–72.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1953/1976). “Mr. Strawson on Logical Theory.” In The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 137–157.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1958). “Speaking of Objects.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 1–25.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1963). “Carnap and Logical Truth.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 385–406.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969a). “Ontological Relativity.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 26–68.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969b). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, 69–90.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1978/1981). “On the Nature of Moral Values.” In Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 55–66.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1986). “Reply to Morton White.” In Hahn, E. and Schilpp, P. A. (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 663–665.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1991/2008). “Two Dogmas in Retrospect.” In Føllesdal, D. and Quine, D. B. (eds.), Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 390–400.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (2001/2008). “Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist.” In Føllesdal, D. and Quine, D. B. (eds.), Confessions of a Confirmed Extensionalist and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 498–506.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (2004). Quintessence: Basic Readings from the Philosophy of W. V. Quine. Edited by Gibson, R.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1931). “Truth and Probability.” In Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.), The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 156–198.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H. (2004). “From Frege and Russell to Carnap: Logic and Logicism in the 1920s.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 151–180.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H. (2005). “Frege’s Natural Numbers: Motivations and Modifications.” In Beaney, M. and Reck, E. (eds.), Gottlob Frege, Critical Assessments, vol. III. London: Routledge, 270–301.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H. (2007a). “Frege-Russell Numbers: Analysis or Explication?” In Beaney, M. (ed.), The Analytic Turn. London: Routledge: 33–50.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H. (2007b). “Carnap and Modern Logic.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 176–199.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H. (2012). “Carnapian Explication: A Case Study and Critique.” In Wagner, P. (ed.), Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 96–116.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H. (2013). “Hempel, Carnap, and the Covering Law Model.” In Milkov, N. and Peckhaus, V. (eds.), The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism. Berlin: Springer, 311–324.Google Scholar
Reck, E. H., and Schiemer, G. (eds.), (2020). The Prehistory of Mathematical Structuralism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1930/1978). “The Philosophical Significance of Modern Physics.” In Reichenbach, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), Hans Reichenbach: Selected Writings, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Reidel, 304–323.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1954). Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1954/1976). Laws, Modalities, and Counterfactuals. Reprinting of Nomological Statements and Admissible Operations with Foreword by W. C. Salmon. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1959). “Free Will.” In Reichenbach, M. (ed.), Modern Philosophy of Science: Selected Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 151–192.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. (1991). “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?” Philosophy of Science 58: 264–277.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science. To the Icy Slopes of Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. (2009). “Three Kinds of Political Engagement for Philosophy of Science.” Science and Education 41: 191–197.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (1998). Carnap’s Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2003). “The Geometry of Knowledge: Lewis, Becker, Carnap and the Formalization of Philosophy in the 1920s.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 (1): 165–182.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2007). “Carnapian Pragmatism.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 295–315.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2010). “Ernst Cassirer and Michael Friedman: Kantian or Hegelian Dynamics of Reason?” In Domski, M. and Dickson, M. (eds.), Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. LaSalle IL: Open Court, 279–294.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2013). “Taking the Measure of Carnap’s Philosophical Engineering: Metalogic as Metrology.” In Reck, E. (ed.), The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. London: Palgrave, 60–77.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2017). “‘Neither a Confession Nor an Accusation’: Michael Polanyi, Hans Reichenbach, and Philosophical Modernity after World War One.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 47 (3): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2021). “On the Empirical Refutation of Epistemological Doctrine in Hans Reichenbach’s Early Philosophy.” In Lutz, S. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), Logical Empiricism and the Physical Sciences: From Philosophy of Nature to Philosophy of Physics. New York: Routledge, 157–178.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. (2009a). “The Left Vienna Circle, Part 1.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40: 14–24.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. (2009b). “The Left Vienna Circle, Part 2. The Left Vienna Circle, Disciplinary History, and Feminist Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2): 167–174.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Th. (1996). “Carnap: From Logical Syntax to Semantics.” In Giere, R. N. and Richardson, A. W. (eds.), Origins of Logical Empiricism. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press, 213–250.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Th. (2003). “Languages and Calculi.” In Hardcastle, G. L. and Richardson, A. W. (eds.), Logical Empiricism in North America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 257–280.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Th. (2004). “Frege, Carnap, and Quine: Continuities and Discontinuities.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 181–202.Google Scholar
Ricketts, Th. (2007). “Tolerance and Logicism: Logical Syntax and the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200–225.Google Scholar
Romizi, D. (2012). “The Vienna Circle’s ‘Scientific World-Conception’: Philosophy of Science in a Political Arena.” HOPOS 2: 205–242.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. (2010). “Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.” In Hale, B. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–136.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1924/1958). “Logical Atomism.” In Pears, D. (ed.), The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 157–181.Google Scholar
Russell, B., and Whitehead, N. A. (1910–1913). Principia Mathematica, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiemer, G. (2012). “Carnap’s Untersuchungen: Logicism, Formal Axiomatics, and Metatheory.” In Creath, R. (ed.), Rudolf Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Vienna: Springer, 13–36.Google Scholar
Schiemer, G., and Reck, E. (2013). “Logic in the 1930s: Type Theory and Model Theory.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 19: 433–472.Google Scholar
Schiemer, G., Zach, R., and Reck, E. (2017). “Carnap’s Early Metatheory: Scope and Limits.” Erkenntnis 194 (1): 33–65.Google Scholar
Schilpp, P. A. (ed.) (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1925/1974). General Theory of Knowledge. 2nd ed. Translated by A. E. Blumberg. New York: Vienna: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1930/1939). Problems of Ethics. Translated by David Rynin. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schlimm, D. (2013). “Axioms in Mathematical Practice.” Philosophia Mathematica 21 (1): 37–92.Google Scholar
Schroeder-Gudehus, B. (1973). “Challenge to Transnational Loyalties: International Scientific Organizations after the First World War.” Science Studies 3 (2): 93–118.Google Scholar
Schwartzkopff, R. (2011). “Numbers as Ontologically Dependent Objects: Hume’s Principle Revisited.” Grazer Philosophische Studien 82 (1): 353–373.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sher, G. (2008). “Tarski’s Thesis.” In Patterson, D. E. (ed.), Alfred Tarski: Philosophical Background, Development, and Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300–339.Google Scholar
Shieh, S. (2017). “Pragmatism, Apriority, and Modality: C. I. Lewis against Russell’s Material Implication.” In Olen, P. and Sachs, C. (eds.), Pragmatism in Transition: Contemporary Perspectives on C. I. Lewis. London; New York: Palgrave, 103–145.Google Scholar
Shimony, A. (1955). “Coherence and the Axioms of Confirmation.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 20: 1–28.Google Scholar
Siegetsleitner, A. (2014). Ethik und Moral im Wiener Kreis. Zur Geschichte eines engagierten Humanismus. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1990). The Dynamics of Rational Deliberation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1995). “Strict Coherence, Sigma Coherence and the Metaphysics of Quantity.” Philosophical Studies 77: 39–55.Google Scholar
Stadler, F. (1997). Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1954/1974). “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations.” In Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. London: Methuen, 133–168.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1963). “Carnap’s Views on Constructed Systems versus Natural Languages in Analytic Philosophy.” In Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 503–518.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1986). “Reference and Its roots.” In Hahn, L. and Schilpp, P. A. (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine. 2nd ed. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 519–532.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F., and Grice, H. P. (1956). “In Defense of a Dogma.” Philosophical Review 65: 141–158.Google Scholar
Stump, D. (2009). “Pragmatism, Activism, and the Icy Slopes of Logic in George Reisch’s Portrait of Philosophy as a Young Field.” Science and Education 18: 169–175.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.) (1974). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1992). “Axiomatic Methods in Science.” In Carvallo, M. (ed.), Nature, Cognition and System II. Heidelberg: Springer, 205–232.Google Scholar
Sznajder, M. (2018). “Inductive Logic as Explication: The Evolution of Carnap’s Notion of Logical Probability.” The Monist 101 (4): 417–440.Google Scholar
Sznajder, M. (2022). “Janina Hosiasson‐Lindenbaum on Analogical Reasoning: New Sources.” Erkenntnis. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-022-00586-y.Google Scholar
Táíwò, O. O. (2021). “Joining Team Positivism.” The Sooty Empiric (blog). February 1. http://sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2021/02/joining-team-positivism-by-olufemi-o.html.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1936/1956). “The Establishment of Scientific Semantics.” In Woodger, J. (ed.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 401–408.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1936/2002). “On the Concept of Following Logically.” History and Philosophy of Logic 23: 155–196.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1954–1955). “Contributions to the Theory of Models.” Indagationes mathematicae 16: 572–588; 17: 56–64.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. (1933/1956). “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages.” In Woodger, J. (ed.), Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 152–278.Google Scholar
Tauli, V. (1974). “The Theory of Language Planning.” In Fishman, J. A., Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton & Co., 49–67.Google Scholar
Tomalin, M. (2009). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tuboly, A. T. (2017). “From ‘Syntax’ to ‘Semantik’ – Carnap’s Inferentialism and its Prospects.” Polish Journal of Philosophy 11 (1): 57–78.Google Scholar
Tuboly, A. T. (2022). “The Constitution of geistige Gegenstände in Carnap’s Aufbau and the Importance of Hans Freyer.” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 181–204.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2005). “Political Philosophy of Science in Logical Empiricism: The Left Vienna Circle.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (4): 754–773.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2009). “Carnap’s Logical Syntax in the Context of the Vienna Circle.” In Wagner, P., (ed.), Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 53–78.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2010). “What’s Right about Carnap, Neurath and the Left Vienna Circle Thesis: A Refutation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (2): 214–221.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2012a). “Carnap, Philosophy and ‘Politics in the Broadest Sense.’” In Creath, R. (ed.), Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Vienna: Springer, 133–148.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2012b). “On the Production History and Early Reception of The Scientific Conception of the World. The Vienna Circle.” In Carnap, R., Hahn, H., and Neurath, O. (1929/2012). Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis. Edited by Stadler, F. and Uebel, Th.. Vienna; New York: Springer, 291–314.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2013a). “Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the Bipartite Metatheory Conception.” Erkenntnis 78: 523–546.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2013b). “Neurath’s Unity of Science and the Encyclopedia Project.” In Kaldis, B (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, vol 2. London: Sage: 659–662.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2015). “Three Challenges to the Complementarity of the Logic and the Pragmatics of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 53: 23–32.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2020). “Intersubjective Accountability: Politics and Philosophy in the Left Vienna Circle.” Perspectives on Science 28 (1): 35–62.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2021). “Was bedeutet Carnaps ‘Reinigung’ der Erkenntnistheorie?” In Damböck, Ch., Sandner, G., and Werner, M. (eds.), Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung / Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement. Cham: Springer, 127–147.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (2022). “The Bipartite Metatheory Conception of Philosophy.” In Uebel, Th. and Limbeck-Lilienau, C., (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism, Abingdon: Routledge, 361–370.Google Scholar
Uebel, Th. (ms.) “Carnap and the Indeterminacy of Translation.” Talk given at the Conference “60 Years of Quine’s Word and Object” at the University of Campinas, Brazil in August 2021. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
UN News. (2021). “IPCC Report: ‘Code Red’ for Human Driven Global Heating, Warns UN Chief.” UN News. August 9. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097362.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, S. (2018). Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine’s Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verhaegh, S. (2020). “Coming to America: Carnap, Reichenbach and the Great Intellectual Migration. Part I: Rudolf Carnap.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 8 (11): 1–23.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. (ed.) (2009). Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. (ed.) (2012). Carnap’s Ideal of Explication and Naturalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Wartofsky, M. (1982). “The Vienna Circle as a Social Movement.” Grazer Philosophische Studien, 16–17 (1): 79–101.Google Scholar
Weir, A. (2014). “Quine’s Naturalism.” In Harman, G. and Lepore, E. (eds.) A Companion to W. V. O. Quine. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 114–147.Google Scholar
Werner, M. (2003). Moderne in der Provinz. Kulturelle Experimente im Fin de Siècle Jena. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag.Google Scholar
White, M. J. (1985). Agency and Integrality: Philosophical Themes in the Ancient Discussions of Determinism and Responsibility. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Wieman, H. N. (1937). “Review of ‘Factors Determining Human Behavior by Harvard Tercentenary Publications.’” The Journal of Religion 17 (3): 321–324.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2022). Imitation of Rigor. An Alternative History of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by C. K. Ogden. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wolters, G. (2004). “Styles in Philosophy: The Case of Carnap.” In Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.), Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena. Lasalle, IL: Open Court, 25–39.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1998). “Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?” Australian Society Supplementary 72 (1): 229–283.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (1982). “W. E. Johnson’s Sufficientness Postulate.” The Annals of Statistics 10 (4): 1091–1099.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (1997a). “The Continuum of Inductive Methods Revisited.” In Earman, J. and Norton, J. D. (eds.), The Cosmos of Science: Essays of Exploration. Pittsburgh; Konstanz: University of Pittsburgh Press; Universitäts Verlag-Konstanz, 351–385.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (1997b). “Confirming Universal Generalizations.” Erkenntnis 45: 267–283.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (2007). “Carnap on Probability and Induction.” In Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273–294.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (2008). “Philosophy of Inductive Logic: The Bayesian Perspective.” In Haaparanta, L. (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 725–774.Google Scholar
Zabell, S. L. (2011). “Carnap and the Logic of Inductive Inference.” In Gabbay, D., Hartmann, S., and Woods, J. (eds.), Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Logic, Volume 10: Inductive Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 265–309.Google Scholar