Minutes debate
The protocol sentence debate was a debate by the Vienna Circle and its environment about the form and epistemological position of protocol sentences as well as their role in the examination of scientific theories. The main participants were Moritz Schlick , Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap . This debate marks an important change in the direction of logical empiricism . Until then, observational statements were viewed as a solid empirical basis with which scientific theories could be founded, this view has now been replaced by a fallibilism . There was also a turn away from correspondence theories and a move towards a coherence theory of truth.
The debate was triggered by a publication by O. Neurath, published in 1932, in which he criticized Carnap's view of protocol sentences. Carnap had characterized protocol sentences in his article "The physical language as the universal language of science" by taking their observations from practically working scientists as a model:
- "This refers to the sentences contained in the original protocol of a physicist or psychologist, for example. We imagine the process as schematized as if all of our experiences, perceptions, but also feelings, thoughts, etc., both in science and in Ordinary life is first recorded in writing, so that further processing is always linked to a record as a starting point. "
Carnap regards the protocol language as an "original" language outside of scientific language. However, both are linked by translation rules so that a scientific theory can be checked using protocol records.
For Otto Neurath, on the other hand, protocol sentences belong to the same universal intersubjective language in which theories are formulated, but they have to follow a certain form; for example, they always contain the name of the perceiving person. Influenced by Pierre Duhem and his thesis that all observations are full of theory , Neurath also considers protocol sentences to be not absolutely unchangeable, but rather revisable.
In his answer Carnap replied that his views do not contradict Neurath's views, but that there are two possible points of view that can be reconciled with one another. Carnap, however, rejects a specific form of protocol sentences. If Neurath's point of view is adopted, protocol sentences are not fundamentally different from other sentences in scientific language and they always only form a provisional agreement within the framework of a research context, which can be checked again by oneself.
See also
swell
- ^ O. Neurath: Protocol sentences. , Knowledge 3, 204-214, 1932
- ^ R. Carnap: The physical language as the universal language of science. Knowledge 2, 432-465, 1932
- ^ R. Carnap: About protocol sentences. Knowledge 3, 215-228, 1932
- ↑ R. Carnap adopts a criticism by Popper who, because of the reference to a perceiving person, suspected a subjective character in Neurath's form of the protocol sentences.