Felix Kaufmann’s edited-volume essay examines logical positivism through its internal disputes, arguing that its linguistic reforms have clarified traditional epistemological problems without abolishing them. Its three sections move from debates within the Vienna Circle, through Carnap’s attempted synthesis of empiricist doctrines, to Kaufmann’s own distinction between deductive logic and the logic of scientific inquiry. The governing question is whether meaning, truth, and logical relations can be adequately understood through linguistic conventions and procedures of confirmation.
Section I begins with Carnap’s example of realist and idealist geographers who agree about an African mountain’s observable properties but disagree about its mind-independent existence. Kaufmann accepts that their metaphysical declarations, as formulated, assert no discriminable facts. Yet rejecting those declarations does not resolve the relation between experience and reality. Realists can still ask whether intersubjective inquiry presupposes identical objects accessible to different observers, or whether experience already presupposes existing beings.
It is thus seen that the problem of clarifying the relation between “experience” and “reality” is not disposed of by discarding inadequate formulations of this problem as pseudo-sentences.
This distinction between rejecting formulations and resolving problems guides the historical reconstruction. Wittgenstein’s conception of philosophy as linguistic criticism united the Vienna Circle, but his account of language’s structural correspondence with reality, immediate experience, and atomic propositions divided it. Objections to comparing propositions with reality encouraged comparison between propositions and the development of hierarchical languages. Criticism of sensory foundations promoted physicalism, while conventionalism made the choice of scientific language answerable to convenience rather than absolute foundations.
Scientific laws presented a further difficulty: strict verification and a language confined to truth-functions of elementary propositions could not readily accommodate unrestricted generalizations. Kaufmann traces responses through Popper’s falsifiability criterion and debates over probability. He distinguishes Reichenbach’s proposed statistical interpretation of every degree of credibility from Keynes’s resistance to universal numerical measurement. These controversies prepared Carnap’s replacement of conclusive verification with confirmation in degrees.
Section II examines Carnap’s Testability and Meaning as an attempt to reconcile empiricists through a sufficiently inclusive scientific language. Carnap admits generalized sentences, adopts partial confirmability, and introduces reduction pairs that specify some conditions for applying or withholding a term without fixing its meaning exhaustively. Such provisions allow scientific vocabulary to develop with inquiry. Kaufmann nevertheless denies that this program merely broadens Wittgenstein’s.
Hence we must not interpret Carnap's criterion as a generalization of Wittgenstein's criterion.
The disagreement concerns foundations, not just formal resources. Wittgenstein connects meaning with elementary truths grounded in immediate experience; Carnap understands knowledge contextually and evaluates languages by their usefulness for inquiry. Consequently, their shared description of philosophy as linguistic criticism conceals incompatible standards of criticism. Kaufmann credits positivism with exposing the genuine shapes of inherited problems, while rejecting the expectation that common symbolism can dissolve substantive philosophical disagreements.
His own position combines elements that the rival programs separate. He accepts intuitive clarification of meanings without identifying it with immediate sensory knowledge or comparison with the actual world. He also defends quantifiers and first-order functional calculus, while rejecting both sensory atomism and Carnap’s reduction of meaning to confirmability. Section III develops the decisive objection: confirmation already presupposes an intelligible content to be confirmed. Rules governing linguistic conventions likewise require evaluative standards that cannot simply be conventions of the same kind. Husserl’s distinction between formal and transcendental logic offers Kaufmann a way to acknowledge objective meanings while retaining the deeper problem of their constitution.
A proposition describes a possible state of affairs; to assert this proposition is to claim the actuality (existence) of such a state of affairs.
Propositions belong to deductive logic; assertions, considered as candidates for scientific acceptance, belong to the logic of science. Deduction establishes entailment between propositions. Inductive inference instead licenses incorporating an assertion into a historically situated body of knowledge under procedural rules. Scientific methodology therefore concerns warranted changes in accepted knowledge, including withdrawal. Its structural requirements include consistency, conditions for acceptance and elimination, and substantial dependence on observation. Kaufmann carefully distinguishes these requirements from deductive principles: scientific reversibility is a procedural commitment, not an implication of logical negation.
This account underpins his criticism of Carnap’s truth concept. If every scientific decision remains revisable, Kaufmann argues, inquiry cannot coherently be understood as successive approximations to perfect knowledge of a single timeless factual truth. Carnap separates truth from its ascertainment; Kaufmann maintains that making truth independent of every possible confirmation standard reintroduces the transcendent existence that empiricism was supposed to exclude.
It seems to me that this view is untenable. I submit that the expression "true sentence" is as objectionable as the expression "odd numeral."
The concluding analogy separates meaningful contents from their physical inscriptions. Symbolic procedures depend on particular calculi, whereas entailment and contradiction do not depend on a language. The essay’s enduring contribution lies in connecting fallible scientific practice with an autonomous domain of logical relations, and in showing why neither nominalism nor a unified calculus of deduction and induction can, for Kaufmann, adequately account for both.
This work was divided into 7 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 7 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian