The institutional stabilization of philosophy of science and its withdrawal from social concerns after the Second World War

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I criticize the thesis that value-laden approaches in American philosophy of science were marginalized in the 1960s through the editorial policy at Philosophy of Science and funding practices at the National Science Foundation. I argue that there is no available evidence of any normative restriction on philosophy of science as a domain of inquiry which excluded research on the relation between science and society. Instead, I claim that the absence of any exemplary, professional philosopher who discussed the relation between science and society sufficed to narrow the focus of philosophers of science, given the institutional stabilization of the domain within professional philosophy from 1959 onwards.

KEYWORDS:

• Value-free ideal
• Philosophy of Science Association
• National Science Foundation
• Richard Rudner
• logical empiricism

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Massimiliano Simons, Maarten Van Dyck, Pieter Present and Wim Vanrie for comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

1 Seeger to Reichenbach, 8th August 1952, Hans Reichenbach Papers, Box 38, folder 2 (HR 38-2), Archives of Scientific Philosophy (ASP), Hillman Library, University of Pittsburgh.

2 Reichenbach to Seeger, 12th September 1952, HR 38-2, ASP.

3 “Annual Review of the Social Science Research Program”, 1st July 1958, Ernest Nagel Papers (EN), Box 29, folder “National Science Foundation”, Rare books and Manuscripts Library, Columbia University.

4 Ernest Nagel, “Philosophy of Science 1964”, EN 24 – folder “Teaching Materials Philosophy of Science New School 1954”.

5 “Advisory Panel for Anthropology and History and Philosophy of Science”, EN 29 – “National Science Foundation”.

6 Feigl to Hempel, 16th December 1960, Carl Hempel Papers (CH) 16-1, ASP. Feigl to Sellars (including Science & Ethics Program), 19th April 1960, Wilfrid Sellars Papers (WS) 181-14, ASP.

7 Malisoff to Reichenbach, 14th February 1936, HR 3-23, ASP.

8 “By-laws of the Institute for the Unity of Science”, HR 18-34-11, ASP.

9 Morris to Reichenbach, 18th November 1947, HR 18-33, ASP.

10 Reichenbach to Williams & Wilkins, 21st November 1947, HR 38-16, ASP.

11 Gill to Reichenbach, 25th November 1947, HR 38-16, ASP.

12 Reichenbach to Frank, 13th December 1947, HR 18-34, ASP.

13 Morris to Reichenbach, 3rd December 1947, HR 18-33, ASP.

14 Feigl to Nagel, 15th December 1947, EN 1 – ‘Herbert Feigl’.

15 Frank to Reichenbach, 6th January 1948, HR 18-34, ASP.

16 Bergman to Sellars, 5th January 1948, WS 158-10, ASP.

17 Reichenbach to Frank, 13th January 1948, HR 18-34, ASP.

18 Lundberg to Hempel, 8th July 1948, CH 25-11, ASP.

19 Hempel to Lundberg, 16th July 1948, CH 25-11, ASP.

20 Grünbaum to Reichenbach, 27th May 1951, HR 37-24, ASP.

21 Bergman to Sellars, 5th January 1948, WS 158-10, ASP.

22 ‘Meeting Notes’, 4th January 1957, Richard Rudner Papers (RR) Box 1 – ‘Margenau’, Rare books and Manuscripts Library, Washington University.

23 ‘By-laws adopted by the reorganization committee’, 13th November 1957, RR 1 – ‘Margenau’.

24 Ducasse to Nagel, 22nd June 1958, EN 29 – ‘PSA’.

25 Nagel to Ducasse, 13th June 1958, EN 29 – ‘PSA’.

26 Ducasse to Churchman, 21st September 1958, EN 29 – ‘PSA’.

27 Nagel to Ducasse, 23rd September 1958, EN 29 – ‘PSA’.

28 Ducasse to Zerby, 6th October 1958, RR 1 – ‘Ducasse’.

29 Initially, Nagel had doubts whether Rudner would steer the journal in the right direction. Richard Brandt who had been a colleague of Rudner at Swathmore College suggested to Nagel that Rudner would not be very influential with scientists. Brandt to Nagel, 28th October 1958, EN 29 – ‘PSA’.

30 Rudner to Ducasse, 30th June 1959, RR 1 – ‘Ducasse’.

31 This is a contingent fact of the matter. There were certainly potential exemplars available by the end of the 1950s, but none actualized their potential within the emerging professional discipline of philosophy of science. E.g. Robert Merton was successful in promoting more research on the relation between science and society. Despite the fact that some of Merton’s famous papers were published in Philosophy of Science, his influence on the philosophical community was limited. His graduate students did not pursue a career in philosophy.

32 “List of Accepted and Rejected Papers”, Wesley Salmon Papers Box 66, folder 7, ASP.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO).