The Berlin Group and the Vienna Circle: Affinities and Divergences

Milkov, Nikolay

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5485-0_1

Nikolay Milkov³

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science ((BSPS,volume 273))

1168 Accesses
15 Citations
3 Altmetric

Abstract

The Vienna Circle and the Berlin Group were schools of scientific philosophy that fought a common enemy—philosophical idealism and philosophical traditionalism in general. Their historically decisive influence makes it all the more disappointing that their intertwined story has not come down to us with due regard to its complexity. For the received account—that the Vienna Circle directed the scientific philosophy of the 1920s and 1930s—perpetuates an oversimplified picture of a seminal development of twentieth-century Western intellectual history. The fact is that the Berlin Group was an equal partner with the Vienna Circle, albeit one that pursued an itinerary of its own. But while the latter presented its defining projects in readily discernible terms and became immediately popular, the Berlin Group, whose project was at least as significant as that of its Austrian counterpart, remained largely unrecognized. The task of this chapter is to distinguish the Berliners’ work from that of the Vienna Circle and to bring to light its impact in the history of scientific philosophy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+

from €39.99 /Month

Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: EUR 29.95; Price includes VAT (Germany)

eBook: EUR 85.59; Price includes VAT (Germany)

Softcover Book: EUR 106.99; Price includes VAT (Germany)

Hardcover Book: EUR 106.99; Price includes VAT (Germany)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

') var buybox = document.querySelector("[data-id=id_"+ timestamp +"]").parentNode var buyingOptions = buybox.querySelectorAll(".buying-option") ;[].slice.call(buyingOptions).forEach(initCollapsibles) var buyboxMaxSingleColumnWidth = 480 function initCollapsibles(subscription, index) { var toggle = subscription.querySelector(".buying-option-price") subscription.classList.remove("expanded") var form = subscription.querySelector(".buying-option-form") var priceInfo = subscription.querySelector(".price-info") var buyingOption = toggle.parentElement if (toggle && form && priceInfo) { toggle.setAttribute("role", "button") toggle.setAttribute("tabindex", "0") toggle.addEventListener("click", function (event) { var expandedBuyingOptions = buybox.querySelectorAll(".buying-option.expanded") var buyboxWidth = buybox.offsetWidth ;[].slice.call(expandedBuyingOptions).forEach(function(option) { if (buyboxWidth buyboxMaxSingleColumnWidth) { toggle.click() } else { if (index === 0) { toggle.click() } else { toggle.setAttribute("aria-expanded", "false") form.hidden = "hidden" priceInfo.hidden = "hidden" } } }) } initialStateOpen() if (window.buyboxInitialised) return window.buyboxInitialised = true initKeyControls() })()

Institutional subscriptions

Report/Documentaion – From “Late Enlightenment” to Logical Empiricism: The Berlin Society of Empirical/Scientific Philosophy and the Ernst Mach Association in Vienna

Feyerabend and the Vienna Circle

Review Essay: Two books on the Berlin Group of Logical Empiricists

Notes

1.
Reichenbach’s letter to Heinrich Scholz from 13.10.1931 [HR 013-31-06].
2.
For criticism of this term see the last paragraphs of Sect. 1.8.
3.
Reichenbach’s letter to Ernst von Aster, June 3, 1935 [HR-013-39-34]. Indeed, the manuscripts submitted to Erkenntnis were to be sent to Berlin, not to Vienna. This is reflected in the fact that on the cover of the first four volumes of the journal, Reichenbach’s name was printed in bigger characters than the name of the official co-editor Carnap.
4.
We mean here above all Danneberg et al. (1994), Haller and Stadler (1993), Hentschel (1991), and Poser und Dirks (1998).
5.
Cf. Danneberg and Schernus (1994). We shall speak about this double naming of the Society a little bit later.
6.
In order to understand what the predicate “friendly” meant in German philosophy around 1930, we must recall how hostile the relation between, what later were called, continental and analytic philosophers (for example, between Carnap and Heidegger) was.
7.
On this point, we agree with Peter Simons that “the way philosophical disputes get decided and the way subsequent history is written depend little on the dialectical strength, adequacy or sophistication of the position posed” (Simons 1997, 442).
8.
Cf. Kaila (1930), Petzäll (1931), and Bloomberg and Feigl (1931).
9.
Hempel’s impression, too, was that Grelling “didn’t want to enter a university career. I don’t quite understand why” (Hempel 2000, 6; my italics—N. M.).
10.
On Grellings’s work with Leonard Nelson, see Sect. 1.4, below.
11.
On the contacts between Grelling and Reichenbach before 1926, see Sect. 1.5.
12.
On Paul Oppenheim cf. Sect. 1.5 (iii), n. 38, and Chaps. 12 and 13.
13.
Cf. Chaps. Chaps. 10 and 11. Typically, this turn was preceded by an argument with Reichenbach. Cf. Sect. 1.6, (b).
14.
A letter of Felix Meiner to Reichenbach from 5.12.33 [HR 013-24-33].
15.
Cf. Danneberg and Schernus (1994, 396, n. 26).
16.
Cf. Reichenbach’s letter to Heinrich Scholtz from 05.01.1928 [015-41-15].
17.
Cf. Gerner (1997, 106).
18.
On Alexander Herzberg see Schernus (1994).
19.
See Sect. 1.4, below.
20.
Cf. Reichenbach’s letter to Philipp Frank of 1.05.29 [HR 014-06-31].
21.
Cf. Sect. 1.7, (ii), below.
22.
Cf. Leitko (1998, 154).
23.
Cf. Sect. 1.7, (ii), below.
24.
The Viennese Musil was 1931–33 in Berlin.
25.
This sentence in Neurath’s “Remarks” was written by Reichenbach. Cf. Reichenbach’s letter to Otto Neurath of 24.04.1930 [HR 013-41-70].
26.
How little this period of the German philosophical thought is known today is clear when we glance in the Routledge Philosophy of Science Encyclopedia in which we read: “What is called philosophy of science today has its roots in both the British and the Austrian tradition … (with Bolzano, Mach, and others)” (Sarkar and Pfeifer 2006, xi).
27.
On the influence of Ernst Cassirer on the Berlin Group see the last paragraph of Sect. 1.7, (ii), as well as Chap. 4. It deserves notice that Nelson and Cassirer were engaged in a heated dispute. In 1906 Nelson published a very negative review of Hermann Cohen’s book Logik der reinen Erkenntnis (1902). Cassirer’s answer to Nelson was reciprocally antagonistic.
28.
Cf. Peckhaus (1990, 152 f).
29.
See Sect. 1.7, (ii), below.
30.
Grete Hermann was also active in earlier sessions of the Society. In one of them she claimed that quantum physics can be easily made to agree with determinism; Werner Heisenberg found this idea very interesting (Danneberg and Schernus 1994, 396–7, n. 26).
31.
On the history of the Monist Group cf. Herzberg (1928).
32.
Cf. Reichenbach (1914). The character of this dispute is to be perhaps better understood with reference to the fact that, in general, Reichenbach had problems with persons that purposivelly strived to influence the public opinion. Typical examples are Otto Neurath and Carl Popper. Leonard Nelson was at least as resolute to exercise influence on society as these two. (I am indebted for this remark to Andreas Kamlah.)
33.
Additional information on the conflict between Hermann Lietz and Gustav Wyneken is to be found in Chap. 7.
34.
Flavia Padovani, for example, deplores: “The reason why Reichenbach finally veered off to Hensel is not clear” (Padovani 2008, 39).
35.
Cf. Carnap (1936, 14).
36.
Cf. Thiel (1993).
37.
In his Dissertation Reichenbach also discussed Ernst Friedrich Apelt’s Theory of Induction (1854), which appears on Reichenbach’s bibliography. Apelt was student and friend of Fries. In the draft of the dissertation, Reichenbach refers as well to Fries’ Essay in a Critique of the Principles of Calculus of Probability (1842).
38.
Cf. Eberhardt and Glymour (2008, 15 ff).
39.
Today, this claim is controversial: cf. Friedman and Nordmann (2006).
40.
Cf. Dubislav (1926c, 1927, 1931).
41.
Cf. Chap. 8.
42.
See also Reichenbach (1947, 127 n).
43.
“Diskussion über Wahrscheinlichkeit”, Erkenntnis 1 (1930): 260–85 (Grelling’s contribution is on p. 278).
44.
In fact, this was his position in Grelling (1910). Cf. Sect. 1.5, above.
45.
Cf. Grelling’s letter to Reichenbach of 28.01.1936 [HR 013-14-04].
46.
Cf. Dubislav (1937), Reichenbach (1947, 344), Reichenbach (1951, 280 ff). Cf. Chap. 7.
47.
Nicholas Rescher, who considers himself one of the successors of the “Berlin Group in America” (Rescher 2005), developed this stance in his The Logic of Commands (1966).
48.
Cf. Sect. (ii), below.
49.
Cf. Reichenbach’s letter to Schlick from 2.01.1933 [HR 013–30–13].
50.
See the motto to this chapter.
51.
In fact, the only message of Wittgenstein assimilated in Berlin was the thesis that logic is tautological in character.
52.
Moreover, Reichenbach showed willingness for “peaceful debates” with “speculative”, or idealistic, philosophers, such like Oskar Becker. See Reichenbach (1931a).
53.
Stölzner (2001, 108). Reichenbach’s papers in apology of the Theory of Relativity were recently published in Reichenbach (2006).
54.
One piece of evidence is Einstein’s review of Reichenbach’s Philosophy of Space and Time. Cf. Einstein (1928).
55.
Cf. Chap. 13. It deserves notice that around 1930, Carnap’s interest in Hilbert radically increased (arguably, under Dubislav’s and Reichenbach’s influence), a development that found expression in his Logical Syntax (1934).
56.
Hilbert (1900, 447). Cf. Peckhaus (2003).
57.
Italics mine—N. M.
58.
Cf. Sect. 1.3, above.
59.
This point is confirmed by the fact that Reichenbach referred to Ernst Cassirer (his professor at the University of Berlin), when he spoke about the historical roots of the Berlin Group in Neurath (1930, 312) (cf. n. 25).
60.
Cf. Chaps. 4, 5 and 14.
61.
The 1920 program of Lewin–Reichenbach was most closely followed by Paul Oppenheim (Oppenheim 1926). Cf. Chap. 13.
62.
Moritz Schlick’s letter to Wolfgang Wildenband, 15.03.1931.
63.
Among the authors that are against such conflation are Philipp Kitcher (2001, 148), and Peter Godfrey-Smith (2003, 22).
64.
This point has become especially prominent during recent decades (cf. Howard 2000, 75 f.).
65.
In contrast to his friend Burton Dreben and his acolytes at Harvard.
66.
Preliminary versions of this Chapter were read at the Universities of Bochum, Graz, Pittsburgh and Vancouver. I am grateful for stimulating discussions.

References

Anonymous. 1930. Gesellschaft für empirische philosophie: Berlin. Erkenntnis 1: 72–73.
Article Google Scholar
Ayer, Alfred. 1936. Language, truth, and logic. London: Gollancz.
Google Scholar
Blumberg, Albert E., and Helmut Feigl. 1931. Logical positivism. A new movement in European philosophy. Journal of Philosophy 28: 281–296.
Article Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1936. Von der Erkenntnistheorie zur Wissenschaftslogik. In Wiener Kreis, ed. Michael Stoeltzner and Thomas Uebel, 260–266. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Google Scholar
Cohen, Hermann. 1902. Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. Berlin: Cassirer.
Google Scholar
Dahms, Hans-Joachim. 1994. Positivismusstreit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Danneberg, Lutz. 1998. Der logische Empirismus der zwanziger und dreißiger Jahre: Rezeption und Ausstrahlung. In Hans Reichenbach: Philosophie im Umkreis der Physik, ed. Hans Poser and Ulrich Dirks, 119–138. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Google Scholar
Danneberg, Lutz, and Schernus Wilhelm. 1994. Die Gesellschaft für wissenschaftliche Philosophie. In Hans Reichenbach und die Berliner Gruppe, ed. Lutz Danneberg et al., 391–481. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Google Scholar
Danneberg, Lutz, et al. (eds.). 1994. Hans Reichenbach und die Berliner Gruppe. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1926a. Die Fries’sche Lehre von der Begründung: Darstellung und Kritik. Dömitz: Mattig.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1926b. Über den sogenannten analytischen und synthetischen Urteile. Berlin: Weiss.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1926c. Über die definition. Berlin: Weiss.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1927. Über die definition, 2nd ed. Berlin: Weiss.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1929a. Zur Methodenlehre des Kritizismus. Langensalza: Beyer & Söhne.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1929b. Joseph Petzoldt in memoriam. Annalen der Philosophie 8: 289–295.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1929c. Elementarer Nachweis der Widerspruchslosigkeit des Logik-Kalküls. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 161: 107–112.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1930. Über den sogenannten Gegenstand der Mathematik. Erkenntnis 1: 27–48.
Article Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1931. Die definition, 3rd ed. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1933. Naturphilosophie. Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt.
Google Scholar
Dubislav, Walter. 1937. Zur Unbegründlichkeit der Forderungssätze. Theoria 3: 330–342.
Google Scholar
Eberhardt, F., and C. Glymour. 2008. Introduction. In The concept of probability in the mathematical representation of reality, ed. Hans Reichenbach, and trans. Frederick Eberhardt, and Clark Glymour, 1–36. Chicago: Open Court.
Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. 1928. Hans Reichenbach: Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1: 19–20.
Google Scholar
Ferrari, Massimo. 2008. Moritz Schlick in Wien: Die Wende der Philosophie. In Moritz Schlick: Leben, Werk und Wirkung, ed. Fynn O. Engler and Mathias Iven, 91–113. Berlin: Parerga.
Google Scholar
Franke, Holger. 1991. Leonard Nelson. Ammersbek bei Hamburg: Verlag an der Lottbek.
Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1992. Kant and the exact sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 1999. Reconsidering logical positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2005. Ernst Cassirer and contemporary philosophy of science. Angelaki 10: 119–128.
Article Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael, and Alfred Nordmann (eds.). 2006. The Kantian legacy in nineteenth-century science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Gabriel, Gottfried. 2004. Introduction: Carnap brought home. In Carnap brought home. The view from Jena, ed. S. Awodey and C. Klein, 3–23. Chicago: Open Court.
Google Scholar
Gerner, Karin. 1997. Hans Reichenbach: Sein Leben und Wirken. Osnabrück: Autorenpress.
Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1996. From wissenschaftliche philosophie to philosophy of science. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16: 335–354.
Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2003. Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt. 1910. Die philosophische Grundlagen der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Abhandlungen der Fries’schen Schule 3: 439–478.
Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt. 1929. Realism and logic: An investigation in Russell’s metaphysics. The Monist 39: 501–520.
Article Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt. 1930. Die Philosophie der Raum–Zeit-Lehre. Philosophischer Anzeiger 4: 101–128.
Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt. 1933. Bemerkungen zu Dubislav, Die Definition. Erkenntnis 3: 189–200.
Article Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt. 1939. A logical theory of dependence. In Foundations of gestalt theory, ed. Barry Smith 1988, 217–228. München: Philosophia.
Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt, and Paul Oppenheim. 1937/1938. Der Gestaltbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik. Erkenntnis 7: 211–225. 357–359.
Google Scholar
Grelling, Kurt, and Paul Oppenheim. 1939. Logical analysis of ‘Gestalt’ as ‘functional Whole’. In Foundations of gestalt theory, ed. Barry Smith, 210–216. Philosophia: München.
Google Scholar
Haller, Rudolf, and Stadler Friedrich (eds.). 1993. Wien–Berlin–Prag. Der Aufstieg der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie. Wien: Hölder–Pichler–Tempsky.
Google Scholar
Hardcastle, Gary. 2006. Logical empiricism. In The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia, ed. Sahotra Sarkar and Jessica Pfeifer, 458–465. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1951. General system theory: A new approach to unity of science. Human Biology 23: 313–322.
Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1991. Hans Reichenbach remembered. Erkenntnis 35: 5–10.
Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 2000. Intellectual autobiography—The interview with Richard Nollan. In Science, explanation, and rationality, ed. James H. Fetzer, 3–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Hentschel, Klaus. 1991. Die Korrespondenz Petzold-Reichenbach. Berlin: ERS.
Google Scholar
Herzberg, Lily. 1928. Die philosophischen Hauptströmungen im Monistenbund. Annalen der Philosophie 7: 113–135. 177–199.
Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. 1900. Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 8: 437–479.
Article Google Scholar
Hoffmann, D. 1994. Zur Geschichte der Berliner ‘Gesellschaft für empirische/wissenschaftliche Philosophie’. In Hans Reichenbach und die Berliner Gruppe, ed. Lutz Danneberg et al., 21–31. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Google Scholar
Hoffmann, D. 2007. The society for empirical/scientific philosophy. In Cambridge companion to logical empiricism, ed. Alan Richardson and Thomas Uebel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Howard, Don. 2000. Two left turns make a right: On the curious political career of North American philosophy of science at midcentury. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18: 25–93.
Google Scholar
Iven, Mathias. 2008. Moritz Schlick. Die frühen Jahre (1881–1907). Berlin: Paregra.
Google Scholar
Joergensen, Joergen. 1951. The development of logical empiricism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Kaila, Eino S. 1930. Der logistische neupositivismus. Eine kritische studie. Turku: Annales Universitatis Fennicae Aboensis.
Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philipp. 2001. Carl Hempel. In A companion to analytic philosophy, ed. A.P. Martinich and D. Sosa, 148–159. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chapter Google Scholar
Leitko, Hubert. 1987. Wissenschaft in Berlin. Berlin: Dietz.
Google Scholar
Leitko, Hubert. 1998. Wissenschaft in Berlin um 1930. In Hans Reichenbach: Philosophie im Umkreis der Physik, ed. Hans Poser and Ulrich Dirks, 139–155. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Google Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. 1920. Die verwandtschaftsbegriffe in biologie und physik und die darstellung vollständiger stammbäume. Berlin: Bornträger.
Google Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. 1925. Über Idee und Aufgabe der Vergleichenden Wissenschaftstheorie. Symposion 1: 61–93.
Google Scholar
Luchins, Abraham S., and Edith H. Luchins. 2000. Kurt Grelling: Steadfast scholar in a time of madness. Gestalt Theory 22: 228–281.
Google Scholar
Mayer, Verena. 1991. Die Konstruktion der Erfahrungswelt—Carnap und Husserl. Erkenntnis 35: 287–304.
Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1970. The history and philosophy of science: A taxonomy. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5: 12–67.
Google Scholar
Milkov, Nikolay. 2002. The joint philosophical program of Russell and Wittgenstein (March–November 1912) and its downfall. Contributions of the Austrian Wittgenstein Society 10: 60–62.
Google Scholar
Milkov, Nikolay. 2003. L. Susan Stebbing’s criticism of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 10: 351–363.
Article Google Scholar
Milkov, Nikolay. 2005. Russell studies in Germany today. The Bertrand Russell Society Quarterly 125(6): 35–47.
Google Scholar
Milkov, Nikolay. 2011. Anmerkungen des Herausgebers. In Ziele und Wege der heutigen Naturphilosophie: Fünf Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftstheorie, ed. Hans Reichenbach and N. Milkov, 147–158. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Google Scholar
Moran, Dermot (ed.). 2008. The Routledge companion to twentieth century philosophy. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Mulder, Henk. 1968. Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis. Journal of the History of Philosophy 6: 386–390.
Article Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1929. The Vienna circle of the scientific conception of the world. In Empiricism and sociology, ed. Marie Neurath and Robert S. Cohen, 301–318. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1930. Historische Anmerkungen. Erkenntnis 1: 311–314.
Article Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1931. Physikalismus. Scientia 50: 297–303.
Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1931b. Physicalism: The philosophy of the Viennese circle. The Monist 41: 618–623.
Article Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1932. Protocol sentences. In Logical positivism, ed. Alfred J. Ayer, 199–208. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto. 1936. Die Entwicklung des Wiener Kreises und die Zukunft des logischen Empirismus. In ibid., Gesammelte philosophische Schriften, 2 vols., ed. Rudolf Haller et al., 673–702. Wien: Hölder–Pichler–Tempsky.
Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul. 1926. Die natürliche Ordnung der Wissenschaften: Grundgesetze der vergleichenden Wissenschaftslehre. Jena: Fischer.
Google Scholar
Padovani, Flavia. 2008. Probability and causality in the early works of Hans Reichenbach, Ph.D. dissertation, Geneva: University of Geneva.
Google Scholar
Peckhaus, Volker. 1990. Hilbertprogramm und kritische Philosophie: das Göttinger Modell interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit zwischen Mathematik und Philosophie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Google Scholar
Peckhaus, Volker. 1994. Von Nelson zu Reichenbach: Kurt Grelling in Göttingen und Berlin. In Hans Reichenbach und die Berliner Gruppe, ed. Lutz Danneberg et al., 53–86. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Google Scholar
Peckhaus, Volker. 2003. The pragmatism of Hilbert’s programme. Synthese 137: 141–156.
Article Google Scholar
Petzäll, Åke. 1931. Logistischer Positivismus: Versuch einer Darstellung und Würdigung der philosophischen Grundanschauungen des sog. Wiener Kreises der wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung. Göteborgs högskolas årsskrift 37: 3. 36 pages.
Google Scholar
Poser, Hans, and Ulrich Dirks (eds.). 1998. Hans Reichenbach: Philosophie im Umkreis der Physik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1991. Reichenbach’s Metaphysical picture. Erkenntnis 35: 61–75.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1914. Zum Lietzschen Vortragsabend. Göttinger Akademische Wochenschau 10:5 (12.06.), 38.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1920. The theory of relativity and a priori knowledge. Trans. Maria Reichenbach. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1928a. Philosophie der Raum–Zeit Lehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Book Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1928b. [Russell:] An early appreciation. In Bertrand Russell: Philosopher of the century, ed. Ralph Schoenman, 129–133. London: Allen & Unwin.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1929. Bertrand Russell. In Obelisk Almanach, 82–92. Berlin and Munich: Drei-Masken Verlag.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1930. Zur Einführung. Erkenntnis 1: 1–3.
Article Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1931a. Zum Anschaulichkeitsproblem der Geometrie. Erkenntnis 2: 61–72.
Article Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1931b. Ziele und Wege der heutigen Naturphilosophie. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1932. Wahrscheinlichkeitslogik. Sonderausgabe der Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 29: 471–490.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1936a. Logical empiricism in Germany and the present state of its problems. The Journal of Philosophy 33: 141–160.
Article Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1936b. Ansprache bei der Begrüßung der Pariser Kongresses. In Actes de congrès international de philosophie scientifique. Paris 1035, Tome I: Philosophie scientifique et empirisme logique, 16–18. Paris: Hermann.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1938. Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1951. The rise of scientific philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1953. Der Aufstieg der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie. Trans. Maria Reichenbach. Berlin: Herbig.
Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 2006. Defending Einstein: Hans Reichenbach’s writings on space, time, and motion, ed. Steven Gimbel and Anke Walz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1966. The logic of commands. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1997. H₂O: Hempel–Helmer–Oppenheim: An episode in the history of scientific philosophy in the 20th century. Philosophy of Science 64: 334–360.
Article Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 2005. The Berlin school of logical empiricism and its legacy. In Studies in 20th century philosophy, ed. Nicholas Rescher, 119–148. Ontos: Frankfurt.
Google Scholar
Richardson, Alan, and Thomas Uebel. 2007. Cambridge companion to logical empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1999. The spirit of logical empiricism: Carl G. Hempel’s role in twentieth-century philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science 66: 333–350.
Article Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 2001. Logical empiricism. In A companion to the philosophy of science, ed. W.H. Newton-Smith, 233–251. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra, and Pfeifer Jessica. 2006. The philosophy of science: An introduction. In The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia, ed. Sahotra Sarkar and Pfeifer Jessica, xi–xxvi. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra, and Jessica Pfeifer (eds.). 2006. The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Schernus, Wilhelm. 1994. Alexander herzberg: Psychologie, medizin und wissenschaftliche philosophie. In Hans Reichenbach und die Berliner Gruppe, ed. Lutz Danneberg et al., 33–51. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1918. Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre. Berlin: Springer.
Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1930. Die Wende der Philosophie. Erkenntnis 1: 4–11.
Article Google Scholar
Simons, Peter. 1997. Review of Kush, Psychologism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48: 439–443.
Article Google Scholar
Smith, Barry (ed.). 1988. Foundations of Gestalt theory. München: Philosophia.
Google Scholar
Smith, Barry. 1997. The Neurath–Haller thesis: Austria and the rise of scientific philosophy. In Austrian philosophy past and present, ed. Keith Lehrer and Johann C. Marek, 1–20. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Stadler, Friedrich. 1991. Aspects of the social background and position of the Vienna circle at the University of Vienna. In Rediscovering the forgotten Vienna circle, ed. Thomas Uebel, 51–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Stadler, Friedrich. 1997. Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Google Scholar
Stebbing, Susan. 1933. Logical positivism and analysis. Proceedings of the British Academy 19: 53–87.
Article Google Scholar
Stölzner, Michael. 2001. Die Kausalitätsdebatte in den Naturwissenschaften. Zu einem Milieuproblem in Formans These. In Wissenschaft: Transformationen im Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Alltag, ed. H. Franz, 85–128. Bielefeld: Institut für Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung.
Google Scholar
Stölzner, Michael. 2002. How metaphysical is ‘deepening the foundations’?—hahn and frank on Hilbert’s axiomatic method. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook 9: 245–262.
Google Scholar
Stumpf, Carl. 1892. Über den Begriff der mathematischen Wahrscheinlichkeit. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und historischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 20: 37–120.
Google Scholar
Thiel, Christian. 1993. Carnap und die wissenschaftliche Philosophie auf der Erlanger Tagung 1923. In Wien–Berlin–Prag Der Aufstieg der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie, ed. Rudolf Haller and Stadler Friedrich, 175–188. Wien: Hölder–Pichler–Tempsky.
Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 2002. The empirical stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
von Aster, Ernst. 1913. Prinzipien der Erkenntnislehre. München: Quelle & Meyer.
Google Scholar
Wittmann, Simone. 1998. Das Frühwerk Kurt Lewins. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Philosophy, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany
Nikolay Milkov

Authors

Nikolay Milkov
View author publications
Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikolay Milkov .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Universität Paderborn, Warburger Straße 100, Paderborn, 33098, Germany
Nikolay Milkov
Fak. Kulturwissenschaften, Abt. Philosophie, Universität Paderborn, Warburger Str. 100, Paderborn, 33098, Germany
Volker Peckhaus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Milkov, N. (2013). The Berlin Group and the Vienna Circle: Affinities and Divergences. In: Milkov, N., Peckhaus, V. (eds) The Berlin Group and the Philosophy of Logical Empiricism. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 273. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5485-0_1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5485-0_1
Published: 05 January 2013
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5484-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5485-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Publish with us

Policies and ethics