Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:23:14.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

H2O: Hempel-Helmer-Oppenheim, An Episode in the History of Scientific Philosophy in the 20th Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Nicholas Rescher
Nicholas Rescher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh
*
†Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 1012 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Preface. Almost fifty years ago, in 1948, when I was an undergraduate at Queens College in New York and a student of Carl G. Hempel's, I received from his hands an offprint of his now-classic but then just-published paper “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, written in collaboration with Paul Oppenheim and then just published in Philosophy of Science (15[1948], pp. 135–75).1 This paper greatly impressed me—and I was not alone. We have here one of those unusual publications that sets the agenda for a whole generation of investigators. It set in train an enormous body of discussions and publications which shaped the course of deliberations about scientific explanation over the next decades—an effort to which my own work also made some contributions. (This literature and its inherent dialectic has been examined and analyzed in close and interesting detail in Wesley Salmon's fine survey of Four Decades of Scientific Explanation.2) However my present aim is not to consider what came out of the Hempel-Oppenheim paper but what went into it. I want, in sum, to consider the prehistory of that era of scientific explanation studies—and to look more closely at the background ramifications of this paper that launched a thousand others.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 334 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

APPENDIX 1 PUBLICATIONS OF PAUL OPPENHEIM

1926 Die natürliche Ordnung der Wissenschaften: Grundgesetze der vergleichenden Wissenschaftslehre (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1926).Google Scholar
1928 Die Denkfiäche: Statische und dynamische Grundgesetze der wissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung (Berlin, 1928; Kanstudien, Ergänzungsheft 62).Google Scholar
1936a (with C. G. Hempel). Der Typusbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik: Wissenschaftstheoretische Untersuchungen zur Konstitutionsforschung und Psychologie (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff's geversmaatschappl, N.V., 1936).Google Scholar
1936b (with C. G. Hempel). “L'Importance logique de la notion du type,” Actes du Congrès internationale de la Philosophie scientifique: Sorbonne, Paris, 1935 (Paris; Publisher?, 1936).Google Scholar
1937–8 (with Kurt Grelling). “Der Gestaltbegriff im Lichte der neuen Logik,” Erkenntnis, vol. 7 (1937/38), pp. 211–225 and “Supplemental Remarks on the Concepts of Gastalt,” ibid, pp. 357–359.Google Scholar
1939 (with Kurt Grelling): “Logical Analysis of ‘Gestalt’ as ‘Functional Whole,‘ preprinted for Distribution at the Fifth Inductional Congress for the Unity of Science,” Cambridge, MA, 1939.Google Scholar
1945a (with C. G. Hempel). “A Definition of ‘Degree of Confirmation’,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 12 (1945), pp. 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1945b (with Olaf Helmer). “A Syntactical Definition of Probability and of Degree of Confirmation,” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 10 (1945), pp. 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1948 (with C. G. Hempel) “Studies in the Logic of Explanation,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 15 (1948), pp. 135–175. Reprinted in C. G. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Basic Books, 1965), pp. 245–90. Also reprinted in various text anthologies, such as: Herbert Fiegl and May Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1953), pp. 349–352; Baruch Brody (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970), pp. 8–27.Google Scholar
1952 (with John G. Kemeny). “Degree of Factual Support,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 19 (1952), pp. 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1955a (with Nicholas Rescher). “Logical Analysis of Gestalt Concepts,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 6 (1955), pp. 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1955b (with John G. Kemeny). “Systematic Power,” Philosophical Studies, vol. 22 (1955), pp. 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1956 (with John G. Kemeny). “On Reduction,” Philosophical Studies, vol. 7 (1956), pp. 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1957 “Dimensions of Knowledge,” Revue internationale de philosophie, vol. 11 (1957), pp. 151–191.Google Scholar
1958 (with Hilary Putnam). “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” in Herbert Feigl et. al. (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 11 (1958), pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
1959 “A Natural Order of Scientific Disciplines,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 49 (1959), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
1961 (with Hugo Adam Bedau), “Complementarity in Quantum Mechanics: A Logical Analysis,” Synthese, vol. 13 (1961), pp. 201–232.Google Scholar
1966 (with Nathan Brody). “Tensions in Psychology Between the Methods of Behaviorism and Phenomenology,” Psychological Review, vol. 73 (1966), pp. 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1967 (with Nathan Brody). “Methodological Differences Between Behaviorism and Phenomenology,” Psychological Review, vol. 74 (1967), pp. 330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1969a (with Nathan Brody) “Application of Bohr's Principle of Complementarity to the Mind-Body Problem,” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 66 (1969), pp. 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1969b “Reminiscences of Peter,” pp. 1–4 in Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel (Dordrecht-Holland, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1974 (with Siegwart Lindenberg) “A Generalization of Complementarity,” Synthese, vol. 28 (1974), pp. 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1978 (with Siegwart Lindenberg) “The Bargaining Principle,” Synthese, vol. 37 (1978), pp. 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

APPENDIX 2 PUBLICATIONS OF OLAF HELMER

1945 (with Paul Oppenheim) “A Syntactical Definition of Probability and of Degree of Confirmation,” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 10 (1945), pp. 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1947 (with David S. Nathan) Analytic Geometry (New York: Prentice Hall, 1947).Google Scholar
1951 (with Norman C. Dalkey) “The Use of Experts for the Estimation of Bombing Requirements—A Project Delphi Experiment,” RAND Corporation research memorandum RM-727-PR (Santa Monica CA, November 1951).Google Scholar
1959 [1958] (with Nicholas Rescher) “On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences,” Management Science, vol. 6 (1959), pp. 25–52. Reprinted in Nicholas Rescher's Scientific Explanation (New York: The Free Press, 1970), pp. 163–208 and in Olaf Helmer's Looking Forward: A Guide to Future Research (Beverly Hills, 1983), pp. 25–48. This paper was originally issued in 1958 as RAND publication P-1513 and reissued in 1960 as RAND publication R-353. Also reprinted in Executive Readings in Management Sciences, ed. by M. K. Starr (New York: Macmillan, 1965), and in The Nature and Scope of Social Science, ed. by I. Krimerman (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969). [The work on which this paper is based was done in 1954–55.]Google Scholar
1962 (with T. A. Brown) “SAFE,” RAND Research Memorandum RM-3827 (1962).Google Scholar
1963a (with Norman Dalkey) “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science, vol. 9 (1963), pp. 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1963b (with Edwards Quade) “An Approach to the Study of a Developing Economies by Operational Gaming,” RAND publication R-2718 (Santa Monica CA, March 1963).Google Scholar
1963c “The Systematic Use of Expert Judgment in Operations Research,” RAND Corporation paper P-2795 (Santa Monica CA, September 1963).Google Scholar
1964a “Convergence of Expert Consensus Through Feedback,” RAND Corporation paper P-2973 (Santa Monica CA, September 1964).Google Scholar
1964b (with Theodore Gordon) “Report on a Long-range Forecasting Study,” RAND Corporation paper P-2982 (Santa Monica CA, September 1964). [Reprinted as an Appendix to 1966a.]Google Scholar
1964c (with Bernice Brown) “Improving the Reliability of Estimates Obtained from a Consenses of Experts,” RAND Corporation paper P-2986 (Santa Monica CA, September 1964).Google Scholar
1965 (with T. J. Gordon), “Probing the Future,” News Front Magazine, vol. 9 (April 1965).Google Scholar
1966a (with Bernice Brown and Theodore Gordon) Social Technology (New York: Basic Books, 1966). German transl. as 50 Jahre Zukunft (Hamburg: Mosaik Verlag, 1967). French transl. as Technologie sociale (Paris: SEDEIS, 1965). Also translated into Japanese (1969) and Swedish (1970).Google Scholar
1966b “The Use of the Delphi Technique in Problems of Educational Innovation,” RAND Corporation paper P-3499 (December 1966).Google Scholar
1966c “The Delphi Method for Systematizing Judgments about the Future,” Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, publication MR-61 (Los Angeles CA, 1966).Google Scholar
1966d (with others), “Prospectus for an Institute for the Future” (Santa Monica CA, 1966).Google Scholar
1967a “New Developments in Early Forecasting of Public Problems: A New Intellectual Climate,” RAND Corporation paper P-3576 (Santa Monica CA, April 1967). Reprinted in Vital Speeches, vol. 33 (1967).Google Scholar
1967b “The Future of Science,” RAND Corporation paper P-3607 (Santa Monica CA, May 1967)Google Scholar
1967c “Methodology of Societal Studies,” RAND Corporation paper P-3611 (Santa Monica CA, June 1967).Google Scholar
1967d “Prospects of Technological Progress,” RAND Corporation paper P-3643 (Santa Monica CA, August 1967).Google Scholar
1967e “Systemation Use of Expert Opinions,” RAND Corporation paper P-3721 (Santa Monica CA, November 1967).Google Scholar
1967f “The Delphi Technique and Educational Innovation,” in W. Hirsch (ed.), Inventing Education for the Future (San Francisco, Chandler, 1967).Google Scholar
1968a “Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method,” in James Bright (ed.), Technological Forecasting for Industry and Government (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968), pp. 116–122. Itanian tr. in Rivista Italiana di Amministrazione Industriale.Google Scholar
1968b “The Delphi Method: An Illustration,” in ibid, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar
1969a (with R. de Brigard), “Some Potential Societal Developments, 1970–2000,” Institute for the Future report R-7 (Middletown CN, September 1969).Google Scholar
1969b “Simulating the Values of the Future,” in Kurt Baier and Nicholas Rescher (eds.) Values and the Future (New York: The Free Press, 1969).Google Scholar
1969c “Political Analysis of the Future,” Institute for the Future paper P-1 (Middletown CN, August 1969).Google Scholar
1969d (with several collaborators) “Development of Long-Range Forecasting Methods for Connecticut: A Summary,” Institute for the Future report R-5 (Middletown CN, September 1969).Google Scholar
1970a “Toward the Automation of Delphi,” Institute for the Future technical memorandum (Middletown CN, March 1970).Google Scholar
1970b “Long-Range Forecasting: Rules and Methods,” Institute for the Future paper P-7 (Middletown CN, May 1970).Google Scholar
1970c (with Helen M. Helmer) “Future Opportunities for Foundation Support,” Institute for the Future report R-11, (Middletown CN, June 1970).Google Scholar
1970d “Report on the Future of the Future-State-of-the-Union Reports,” Institute for the Future report R-14 (Middletown CN, October 1970).Google Scholar
1971 “Multipurpose Planning Games,” Institute for the Future working paper WP-17 (Middletown CN, December 1971).Google Scholar
1971b (with Paul Gray) “The Use of Future Analysis in Transportation Research Planning,” Transportation Journal, vol. 16 (1971), pp. ???Google Scholar
1972a “Cross-Impact Gaming,” Futures, vol. 4, no. 2 (June 1972), pp. 149–67Google Scholar
1973a “Accomplishments and Prospects of Futures Research,” Center for Future Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California (Los Angeles CA, August 1973).Google Scholar
1973b “The Use of Expert Opinion in International Relations Forecasting,” Center for Futures Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Southern California (Los Angeles CA, July 1973).Google Scholar
1974 “An Agenda for Futures Research,” Los Angeles: Center for Futures Research, University of Southern California, 1974. Reprinted as Chap. 17 in W. Boucher (ed.), The Study of the Future (Washington DC: Gov't Printing Office, 1977).Google Scholar
1975 “Foreword” to Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff (eds.), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications (Reading MA: Addison Wesley, 1975).Google Scholar
1976 “On the Future State of the Union” Institute for the Future research memorandum R-27 (Middletown, CN, May 1972), vol 16 (1976) pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
1977 “Problems in Futures Research: Delphi and Causal Cross-Impact Analysis,” Futures, vol. 9, no. 1 (1977), pp. 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1978 “GEM: An Interactive Simulation Model of the Global Economy,” International Institute for Applied Systems Research Memorandum (Los Angeles, 1978).Google Scholar
1983 Looking Forward: A Guide to Futures Research (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1983).Google Scholar
1984 “The Futurist's Social Responsibility,” Futures, vol. 16, no. 1 (1984), pp. 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Nuclear Sanity, Anyone?” Technological Forecasting, vol. 41 (1992), pp. 445–447.Google Scholar
NOTE: Helmer translated Alfred Tarski's Introduction to Logic and the Methodology of Deductive Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1941), and Hermann Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949). He also translated Rudolf Carnap's Logical Syntax of Language (London: Routledge, 1959), though this was not acknowledged in print.Google Scholar