No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Philosophers investigating the nature of knowledge from Bacon and Descartes to logical empiricism, have sought to understand its character by means of the distinction between the content of knowledge, and the abstract logical and mathematical principles which regulate its structure or form. The nature of the distinction, the relative roles of content and form, and the relationships between the two, however, have been given widely divergent interpretations.
This paper was read at the meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association at Stanford University, December 1948.
1 Carnap, R. “Testability and Meaning” Philosophy of Science, Vol. IV, No. 1, p. 12.
2 Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth and Logic, p. 214.
3 Carnap, R. Op. cit. p. 33.
4 Carnap, R., The Logical Syntax of Language, p. 1.
5 Ayer, A. J., The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge, p. 86.
6 Ibid. p. 112.
7 Carnap, R., The Logical Syntax of Language, p. 332.
8 Ibid. p. 332.
9 In his Introduction to Semantics, published in 1942, page 250, referring to The Logical Syntax of Language, Carnap says: “The chief thesis of Part V, if split up into two components, was like this: a. ‘(Theoretical) philosophy is the logic of science.’ b. ‘Logic of science is the syntax of the language of science.’ (a) remains valid. … Thesis (b), however, needs modification by adding semantics to syntax. Thus the whole thesis is changed to the following: the task of philosophy is semiotical analysis; the problems of philosophy concern—not the ultimate nature of being but—the semiotical structure of the language of science, including the theoretical part of everyday language. We may distinguish between those problems which deal with the activities of gaining and communicating knowledge and the problems of logical analysis. Those of the first kind belong to pragmatics, those of the second kind to semantics or syntax—to semantics, if designata (”meaning“) are taken into consideration; to syntax, if the analysis is purely formal.”
10 Lewis, C. I., Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. p. 37.
11 Ibid. p. 133.
12 Ibid. p. 138.
13 Margenau, Henry, “Methodology of Modern Physics,” Philosophy of Science, April 1935.
14 Ibid. p. 173.
15 Ibid. p. 175.
16 Northrop, F. S. C., The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities, p. 119.
17 Ibid. p. 144.
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.