Welcome to One of the Largest and Most Visited
Sources of Philosophical Texts on the Internet.
Evans Experientialism Evans Experientialism
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Hans Reichenbach |
||||
Appointed to a chair in Berlin in 1926 Reichenbach founded the Berlin school of logical positivism. he When Hitler came to power in 1933 he fled to Turkey and taught at Istanbul from 1933 to 1938. He emigrated to the USA and worked at the University of California. |
||||
Reichenbach wrote on quantum mechanics, time, induction, probability and the philosophy of science. Among his works are Elements of Symbolic Logic (1947) and The Rise of Scientific Philosophy (1951). Logic and Language by Hans Reichenbach
If it is true that to a certain extent we
can improve our thinking by studying logic,
the fact is to be explained as a conditioning
of our thought operations in such a way that
the relative number of right results is increased.
When we call logic analysis of thought the
expression should be interpreted so as to
leave no doubt that it is not actual thought
which we pretend to analyze. It is rather
a substitute for thinking processes, their
rational reconstruction, which constitutes
the basis of logical analysis. Once a result
of thinking is obtained, we can reorder our
thoughts in a cogent way, constructing a
chain of thoughts between point of departure
and point of arrival; it is this rational
reconstruction of thinking that is controlled
by logic, and whose analysis reveals those
rules which we call logical laws.
Rise of Scientific Philosophy, by Hans Reichenbach
The two realms of analysis to be distinguished
may be called context of discovery and context
of justification. The context of discovery
is left to psychological analysis, whereas
logic is concerned with the context of justification,
i. e., with the analysis of ordered series
of thought operations so constructed that
they make the results of thought justifiable.
We speak of a justification when we possess
a proof which shows that we have good grounds
to rely upon those results.
It has been questioned whether all thinking
processes are accompanied by linguistic utterances,
and behavioristic theories stating that thinking
consists in linguistic utterances have been
attacked by other psychologists. We need
not enter into this controversy here for
the very reason that we connect logical analysis,
not with actual thinking, but with thinking
in the form of its rational reconstruction.
There can be no doubt that this reconstruction
is bound to linguistic form; this is the
reason that logic is so closely connected
with language. Only after thinking processes
have been cast into linguistic form do they
attain the precision that makes them accessible
to logical tests; logical validity is therefore
a predicate of linguistic forms. Considerations
of this kind have led to the contention that
logic is analysis of language, and that the
term "logical laws" should be replaced
by the term "rules of language."
Thus in the theory of deduction we study
the rules leading from true linguistic utterances
to other true linguistic utterances. This
terminology appears admissible when it is
made clear that the term "rules of language"
is not synonymous with "arbitrary rules."
Not all rules of language are arbitrary;
for instance, the rules of deduction are
not, but are determined by the postulate
that they must lead from true sentences to
true sentences.
It is the value of such an analysis of language"
that it makes thought processes clear, that
it distinguishes meanings and the relations
between meanings from the blurred background
of psychological motives and intentions.
The student of logic will find that an essential
instrument for such clarification is supplied
by the method of symbolization, which has
given its name to the modern form of logic.
It is true that simple logical operations
can be performed without the help of symbolic
representation; but the structure of complicated
relations cannot be seen without the aid
of symbolism. The reason is that the symbolism
eliminates the specific meanings of words
and expresses the general structure which
controls these words, allotting to them their
places within comprehensive relations. The
great advantage of modern logic over the
older forms of the science results from the
fact that this logic is able to analyze structures
that traditional logic never has understood,
and that it is able to solve problems of
whose existence the older logic has never
been aware.
We said that logic cannot claim to replace
creative thought. This limitation includes
symbolic logic; we do not wish to say that
the methods of symbolic logic will make unnecessary
the imaginative forms of thought used in
all domains of life, and it certainly would
be a misunderstanding to believe that symbolic
logic represents a sort of slide-rule technique
by which all problems can be solved. The
practical value of a new scientific technique
is always a secondary question. Logic is
primarily a theoretical science; and it proceeds
by giving a determinate form to notions that
until then had been employed without a clear
understanding of their nature. Whoever has
had such an insight into the structure of
thought, whoever has experienced in his own
mind the great clarification process which
logical analysis accomplishes, will know
what logic can achieve.
Excerpted from Symbolic Logic, by Hans Reichenbach |
||||
TO TOP OF PAGE |