Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
The movement for the Unity of Science has been making headway for a number of years, and each year more workers in the various scientific domains have expressed their interest in it by participating in the discussion of its aims and its specific problems. A characteristic feature of this movement which explains this growing interest is that it does not propose a “super-science” which is to legislate to the special sciences. Its proposal of a Unity of Science is of a different kind, not based upon some grand metaphysical view of any sort. Those who are active within this movement are emphatic in their insistence that instead of aiming at a synthesis of the different sciences on the basis of a prior and independent philosophy, the special sciences will themselves supply their own synthesizing glue. For appreciating the significance of this movement it is therefore necessary to keep in mind that its tendency is toward a unified science, departmentalized into special sciences, and not toward an artificial and speculative juxtaposition of an autonomous philosophy and an autonomous group of sciences.
1 See Otto Neurath, “Une Encyclopedie Internationale de la Science Unitaire.”, in Actes du Congres Internationale de Philosophie Scientifique, Part II. Hermann & Cie., Paris, 1936. Charles W. Morris, “Remarks on the Proposed Encylopaedia” Ibid; Philipp Frank, “Diskussionsbemerkung zur Encyclopaedie, “Ibid; Rudolf Carnap, “Ueber die Einheitsprache der Wissenschaft. Logische Bermerkungen zum Projekt einer Encyclopaedie,” Ibid. A brief appreciation by Bertrand Russell of the aims of the Encyclopaedia will also be found in the first part of the Actes, in the paper entitled, “The Congress of Scientific Philosophy.”