Advertisement

Science, History, Philosophy, and World Views

  • Herman Tennessen

Abstract

In one of my contributions to the XVth World Congress of Philosophy (17-22 September 1973, Varna, Bulgaria) I take my point of departure in the following rather trite observation:

There is something peculiarly redundant in the very idea of humanistic psychology. Whenever a psychologist, qua psychologist, involves himself in whichever conceivable psychological enterprise, that enterprise is not only, needless to say, bound to be a human enterprise but, in point of fact, an enterprise more or less precisely and definitely conceptualized as a direct or indirect contribution to man’s understanding of man, viz., the all-human endeavor to figure out how things within man and around man operate—and what, after all, man’s Jot within the widest conceptual scheme may be. By the same token, “nonhumanistic psychology” is bound to designate nothing but a contiadictio in adjecto. Its nonexistence is a notational necessity. How anyone could ever come to believe that it might make sense to argue as though there actually were such a thing, has only psycho-patho-semantic interest. And the beguiling key concepts at work here, I shall suggest, are: “Science,” “scientific,” plus possibly “objectivity,” “theoryindependent observations” or “percepts,” “refutation,” “autonomy,” “autarchi,” and related notions implicitly suggesting, inter alia, an image, a model of a theory/observation asymmetry, alleged to inexorably permeate all science—and metascience—theoretical activity.1

Keywords

World View Conceptual Scheme Inductive Logic Global Frame Auxiliary Hypothesis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    Further on this paradox vide, e.g., H. Tennessen, “Metaphysics and the Beguilement of Everyday Speech,” Proceedings of the XVth World Congress of Philosophy ,Sofia, Bulgaria (1975), pp. 597–601Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    H. Tennessen, “Quandaries of Quotidianism,” Methodol. Sci. 12 (2), 81–93 (1979)Google Scholar
  3. 1b.
    H. Tennessen, “The Very Idea of a Humanistic Psychology,” pp. 63–108, Humanistic Psychology. Concepts and Criticism ,L. Mos and J. R. Royce, editors (Plenum Press, New York, 1980).Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    H. Tennessen, “Science of History and Notions of Personality,” in W. Yourgrau, editor, Physics, Logic, and History (Plenum Press, New York, 1970)Google Scholar
  5. 2a.
    A. Naess, The Pluralist and Possibilist Aspect of the Scientific Enterprise (George Allen & A. Naess, Unwin, Ltd., London, 1972).Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    Reference 1.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    Reference 1.Google Scholar
  8. 5.
    H. Tennessen, “On What There Was,” in R. E. Olson and A. M. Paul, editors, Contemporary Philosophy in Scandinavia (Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1972).Google Scholar
  9. 6.
    H. Tennessen, “Exit Absurdity, Enter Conceptual Schemes,” Methodol. Sci. 11 (2), 114–123 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Reference 6.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    Consider, for example, the writings of: J. Agassi, “Toward a Historiography of Science,” History and Theory ,Beiheft 2 (Mouton, S’Gravenhage, 1963)Google Scholar
  12. 8a.
    J. Agassi, “Corroboration versus Induction,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 9, 311–317 (1958–1959)Google Scholar
  13. 8b.
    J. Agassi, “Empiricism and Inductivism,” Phil. Stud. 14, 85–86 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 8c.
    J. Agassi, “The Mystery of the Ravens,” Phil. Sci. 33, 394–402 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 8d.
    Paul Feyerabend, “Problems of Microphysics,” in R. G. Colodny, editor, Frontiers of Science and Philosophy ,Vol. 1, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1962)Google Scholar
  16. 8e.
    Paul Feyerabend, “How to be a Good Empiricist-A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological,” in B. Baumrin, editor, Philosophy of Science ,Vol. 2, The Delaware Seminar (1962–1963) New York, London, Sydney: (Interscience Publishers, New York, 1963)Google Scholar
  17. 8f.
    Paul Feyerabend, “Problems of Empiricism,” in R. G. Colodny, editor, Beyond the Edge of Certainty ,Vol. 2, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965)Google Scholar
  18. 8g.
    Paul Feyerabend, Ingemund Gullvag: Absolutisme og relativisme i erkjennelses teorien ,Filosofiske Problemer nr. 20 (Universitersforlaget, Oslo, 1955)Google Scholar
  19. 8h.
    Paul Feyerabend, Knowledge, Truth, and Reality ,Vols. I-IV (Institute for Social Research, Oslo, 1961)Google Scholar
  20. 8i.
    Paul Feyerabend, Truth, Belief, and Certainty (Det Kgl. Norske Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter, Trondheim, 1964)Google Scholar
  21. 8j.
    Paul Feyerabend, “Scepticism and Absurdity,” Inquiry 7 (2), 151–163 (1964)Google Scholar
  22. 8k.
    Paul Feyerabend, Referanse, Mening og Eksistens ,Filosofiske Problemer nr. 34 (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1967)Google Scholar
  23. 8l.
    8l. Jürgen Habermas, “Knowledge and Interest,” Inquiry 9 (4), 285–300 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 8m.
    Jürgen Habermas, Theorie und Praxis (Luchterland Verlag, Berlin, 1963 and 1967)Google Scholar
  25. 8n.
    Jürgen Habermas, “Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence,” Inquiry 13 (4), 360–375 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 8o.
    Jürgen Habermas, Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie” (Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1970)Google Scholar
  27. 8p.
    W. Kneale, Probability and Induction (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1949)Google Scholar
  28. 8q.
    W. Kneale, “Probability and Induction,” Mind 60, 310–317 (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 8r.
    Stephen Körner, Conceptual Thinking (Dover Publications, New York, 1959)Google Scholar
  30. 8s.
    Tom Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Foundations of the Unity of Science ,Vol. II, No. 2 (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962)Google Scholar
  31. 8t.
    H. E. Kyburg, Jr., “The Justification of Induction,” J. Phil. 53, 392–400 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 8u.
    H. E. Kyburg, Jr. Probability and Inductive Logic (The Macmillan Company, Collier-Macmillan, Ltd., London, 1970)Google Scholar
  33. 8v.
    Imre Lakatos, “Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic.” in I. Lakatos, editor, The Problem of Inductive Logic (North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1968)Google Scholar
  34. 8w.
    Imre Lakatos, “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” paper read before a meeting of the Aristotelian Society, London, October 1968Google Scholar
  35. 8x.
    Arne Naess, “Physics and the Variety of World Pictures,” in P. Weingarten, editor, Grundfragen der Wissenschaften und ihre Wurzeln in der Metaphysik (Julius Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1967)Google Scholar
  36. 8y.
    Arne Naess, Scepticism (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London; Humanities Press, New York, 1968-Chapter IV in particular)Google Scholar
  37. Arne Naess, “Language of Creative Research and Language of Science: A Contrast,” Estratto de Linguaggi nella societa e nella technica, Edizioni di commita-Milano (1970)Google Scholar
  38. Arne Naess, Vittenskapsfilosofi (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1971)Google Scholar
  39. Arne Naess, A Dialogue on Induction (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, in press)Google Scholar
  40. Gerard Radnitzky, Contemporary Schools of Metascience (2nd ed): The Psychology of Knowing (Gordon & Breach, New York, 1972). I am particularly indebted to Arne Naess, Reference 2. More often than not my positions as stated above are mere metaphrases of some points already made by Arne Naess.Google Scholar
  41. 9.
    H. Tennessen, “Which World is the Real One, and How Would We Know?” Invited address to the American Psychological Association Conference, Miami Beach, September 3rd, 1970.Google Scholar
  42. 10.
    H. Tennessen, “Permissible and Impermissible Locutions. Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance vs ’Ordinary Language Philosphy,’” Logic and Language. Studies Dedicated to Professor Rudolf Carnap on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday ,B. H. Kazemier and D. Vuysje, editors (D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1962), p. 220f.Google Scholar
  43. 11.
    Anders Wedberg, Fran BoJzano till Wittgenstein, Filosofins historia III (Bonniers, Stockholm, 1966).Google Scholar
  44. 12.
    F. Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra (Alfred Kröner Verlag, Leipzig, 1883, I Teil), p. 8.Google Scholar
  45. 13.
    F. Nietzsche, Menschliches Allzumenschliches (Alfred Kröner Verlag, Leipzig, 1878).Google Scholar
  46. 14.
    H. Tennessen, “Simmel’s tillemping av seleksjonslaeren pa erkjennelsesteorier:1 Tenkningens objektivitet,” Oslo University, 1937, pp. 23–31: Integrasjon og erkjendelse ,Filosofiske Problemer nr. 18 (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1955 and 1960)Google Scholar
  47. 14a.
    H. Tennessen, “Whereof One Has Been Silent, Thereof One May Have to Speak,” J. Phil. LVIII (10), 263–274 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 14b.
    H. Tennessen, on George Simmel’s “Ueber eine Beziehung der Selectionslehre zur Erkenntnistheorie”, Arch, systematische Phil. I (1895).Google Scholar
  49. 15.
    B. Lonegan, Insight-A Study in Human Understanding (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey), p. 329.Google Scholar
  50. 16.
    Søren Kierkegaard, AfsJuttende uvidenskabeligt Efterskrift til de philophiske Smuler (1846) Soren Kierkegaards Samlede Vaerker, Bd. 7 (Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1901–1906), p. 101.Google Scholar
  51. 17.
    A. Koestler, The God that Failed ,here quoted after M. Polanyi, “The Stability of Beliefs,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. (1952)Google Scholar
  52. 18.
    H. Walsby, The Domain of Ideologies (Tait and Son, Ltd., Glasgow, 1947), p. 201.Google Scholar
  53. 19.
    Karl Mannheim, Ideologie und Utopie (Suhrkampf, Bonn, 1929), p. 49.Google Scholar
  54. 20.
    H. Tennessen, “On the Conceptual Absurdity of ’Conceptual Absurdity,’” Phil. Forum XII, 584–592 (1976).Google Scholar
  55. 21.
    It is unclear how Popper’s alleged antisurvivalist position (vis-à-vis theories) is to be most reasonably interpreted. The position is definitely untenable if one allows for the usual evolution of a theory, retaining the same name for the theory. Vide, e.g. ,H. Tennessen, Problems of Knowledge (van Gorcum, Assen, 1980), pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
  56. 22.
    K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (Routledge &; Kegan Paul, London, 1963; Basic Books, New York, 1962).Google Scholar
  57. 23.
    Vide, e.g. ,P. Feyerabend, 1970 and 1970b (and Pro-Paramenides a.o. . . . )Google Scholar
  58. 24.
    Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel measured the parallaxis of Gl Cygni in 1838 and Thomas Henderson that of Centauri in 1839. T. Ferris, 1979, pp. 7, 8, and 180; and H. Tennessen, 1976b, p. 236.Google Scholar
  59. 25.
    Feyerabend’s Pro-Paramenides ,Ref. 23, p. 4.Google Scholar
  60. 26.
    K. Popper, Ref. 22, p. 31.Google Scholar

Science, History, Philosophy, and World Views

  1. 27.
    K. Popper, Ref. 22, p. 31.Google Scholar
  2. 28.
    K. Popper, Ref. 22, p. 42.Google Scholar
  3. 29.
    The exposition here is Robert Cohen’s, i.e., his comments to Adolf Grünbaum’s paper in M. Wartofsky 1963.Google Scholar
  4. 30.
    Harvard Case, Historians in Experimental Science ,Conant and Nash, editors (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957), Vol. 1, p. 111.Google Scholar
  5. 31.
    R. Carnap, Philosophical Foundations of Physics (Basic Books, New York, 1966), pp. 266ff.Google Scholar
  6. 32.
    H. Tennessen, Ref. 5, p. 116f and H. Tennessen, 1978, p. 14f.Google Scholar
  7. 33.
    Concerning this conflict vide ,e.g., P. Feyerabend, “Problems of Empiricism,” Ref. 8, and “Problems of Empiricism, in The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories ,R. G. Colodny, editor (U. Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1970), p. 20.Google Scholar
  8. 34.
    P. Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (Atheneum, New York, 1962), p. 200.Google Scholar
  9. 35.
    Rutherford is here quoted from G. Holton and Roller, Foundation of Modern Physical Science (Addison-Wesley, London, 1962), p. 624.Google Scholar
  10. 36.
    Vide ,H. Tennessen, 1970, p. 54.Google Scholar

Bibliography

  1. Austin, John L., on H. Tennessen’s “What Should We Say?” In H. Tennessen, Language Analysis and Empirical Semantics (University of Alberta Bookstore, Edmonton, 1964), Sec. 10, pp. 143–150.Google Scholar
  2. Bondi, H, Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  3. Bunge, M., Method, Model and Matter (D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland, 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterfield, H., The Origin of Modern Science (Bell, London, 1951).Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T., “Evolutionary Epistemology,” in P. A. Schilpp, editor, The Philosophy of Karl Popper ,Vol. 14, 1 & II (Open Court Publishing Co., LaSalle, 1974), pp. 413–463.Google Scholar
  6. Carnap, R., Philosophical Foundations of Physics (Basic Books, New York; 1966).Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, R., Comments (to Grünbaum’s paper) in Wartofsky, editor, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ,1961/62 (D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht-Holland, 1963).Google Scholar
  8. Colodny, R. G., editor, Beyond the Edge of Certainty (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1965).Google Scholar
  9. Colodny, R. G., editor, The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1970).Google Scholar
  10. Conant, J. B. and Nash, editors, Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science ,Vol. 1. (Harvard University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  11. Courant, R., “Bernhard Riesmann und die Mathematik der Letzten Hundert Jahre,” Naturwissenschaft, XIV (1926).Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, R., Eye and Brain ,(McGraw Hill, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, R., The Intelligent Eye (Weidenfeld &; Nicholson, London, 1970).Google Scholar
  14. Gullvaag, I., Referanse, mening og ehsistens (Oslo University Press, Oslo, 1967).Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, J., “On Systematically Distorted Communication,” Inquiry 13, 205–219 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Habermas, J., Knowledge and Human Interest (Beacon Press, Boston, 1971).Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. Review Symposium by N. Lobkowicz, F. R. Dallmayr, C. K. Lenhardt, M. A. Hill, and C. Nichols Phil. Soc. Sci. 2, 193–210 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horkheimer, M., Kritische Theori ,Vol. II (S. Fischer, Frankfurt a. M.; 1968).Google Scholar
  19. Horkheimer, M., and T. W. Adorno, Dialektik der Aufklärung (S. Fischer, Frankfurt a. M.; 1969).Google Scholar
  20. Kyburg, H. E., “Recent Work in Inductive Logic,” Am. Phil. Quart. 1, 1–39 (1964).Google Scholar
  21. Kyburg, H. E., “Comments on Salmon’s Inductive Evidence” Am. Phil. Quart. 2, 10–12 (1965).Google Scholar
  22. Kyburg, H. E., “Salmon’s Paper,” Phil. Sci. 33, 147–151 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kyburg, H.E., Jr., “Review of Patrick Suppes and Jaakko Hintikka, editors, Aspects of Inductive Logic,” J. Phil. LXV (10), 323–328 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenz, J. W., “Carnap on Defining Degrees of Confirmation,” Phil. Sci. 23, 230–236 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mates, B., “Philosophical Scepticism and the Logical Antinomies” Akten des XIV Internationalen Kongresses für Philosophie ,III. Logik, Erkenntnis-und Wissenschafts-theorie, Sprachphilosophie, Ontologie und Metaphysik (Herder &; Co., Wien, 1969).Google Scholar
  26. Naess, A., Erkenntnis und wissenschaftliches Verhalten (Jacob Dybwad, Oslo ,1936).Google Scholar
  27. Naess, A., Filosofiske Problemer (H. Aschehoug &; Co., Oslo, 1941).Google Scholar
  28. Naess, A., Usaklighetsanalyse (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1947).Google Scholar
  29. Naess, A., An Empirical Study of the Expressions “True,” “Perfectly Certain” and “Extremely Probable” (Jacob Dybwad, Oslo, 1953).Google Scholar
  30. Naess, A., Interpretation and Preciseness, a Contribution to the Theory of Communication ,Skrifter ut gitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II Hist. Filos. Klasse 1953. No. 1 (Johan Dybwad, Oslo, 1953).Google Scholar
  31. Naess, A., Wie Fördert Man Heute Die Empirische Bewegung? (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1956).Google Scholar
  32. Naess, A., Notes on the Foundation of Psychology as a Science (2nd ed.) (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1960).Google Scholar
  33. Naess, A., Empirisk Semantik (Svenska Bokförlaget, Stockholm, 1961).Google Scholar
  34. Naess, A., “Can Knowledge Be Reached?” Inquiry 4 (4), 219–228 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naess, A., Symbolsk Logikk (3rd ed. by Jens-Erik Fenstad) (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo-Bergen, 1962).Google Scholar
  36. Naess, A., “The Inquiring Mind,” Phil. Today 5 (3/4), 184–205 (1961).Google Scholar
  37. Naess, A., Communication and Argument (Bedminster Press, Totowa, New Jersey 1965).Google Scholar
  38. Popper, K. R., “Degree of Confirmation,” Mind 47, 143–149 (1954–55).Google Scholar
  39. Popper, K. R., ”’Content’ and ’Degree of Confirmation’: A Reply to Dr. Bar-Hillel,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 6, 157–163 (1955–56).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Popper, K. R., “A Second Note on Degree of Confirmation,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 7, 350–353 (1956–57).Google Scholar
  41. Popper, K. R., “A Third Note on Degree of Corroboration or Confirmation,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 8, 294–302 (1957–58).Google Scholar
  42. Popper, K. R., Of Clouds and Clocks (Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 1966).Google Scholar
  43. Quine, W. O., From a Logical Point of View (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1953 and 1961).Google Scholar
  44. Quine, W. O., Word and Object (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960).Google Scholar
  45. Quine, W. O., Selected Logic Papers (Random House, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  46. Quine, W. O., “Notes on Existence and Necessity,” J. Phil. 40, (1943).Google Scholar
  47. Quine, W. O., The Ways of Paradox (Random House, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  48. Radnitzky, C., Continental Schools of Metascience I & II (Akademiförlaget, Göteborg, 1968).Google Scholar
  49. Salmon, W. C., “Rejoinder to Barker and Kyburg,” Am. Phil. Quart. 2, 13–16 (1965).Google Scholar
  50. Salmon, W. C., “Rejoinder to Kyburg,” Phil. Sci. 32, 152–154 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salmon, W. C., The Foundation of Scientific Inference (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 1966).Google Scholar
  52. Tennessen, H., Theorien für Stereoskopie, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ausnützung der Querdisparation für binokulare Tiefensehen (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1939).Google Scholar
  53. Tennessen, H., “The Fight against Revelation in Semantical Studies,” Synthese VIII, 231–267 (1950).Google Scholar
  54. Tennessen, H., and Gullvaag, I., Logical Analysis and Definiteness of Intention (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1955 and 1960).Google Scholar
  55. Tennessen, H., “Note on the Confusion of Evidence and Illustration” Vol. LVI(18), 733–736 (1959).Google Scholar
  56. Tennessen, H., “On Worthwhile Hypotheses,” Inquiry 2(3), 183–198 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tennessen, H., “Evidence and Illustration,” Synthese XI (3), 274–276 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tennessen, H., “What Should We Say?” Inquiry 2 (4), 263–269 (1959).Google Scholar
  59. Tennessen, H., “Logical Oddities and Locutional Scarcities,” Synthese XI (4), 376–378 (1959).Google Scholar
  60. Tennessen, H., “Vindication of the Humpty Dumpty Attitude towards Language,” Inquiry 3 (2), 185–198 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tennessen, H., “Empirical Semantics and the Soft Sciences,” In International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. (Abstract of contributed papers) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1960).Google Scholar
  62. Tennessen, H., “On Making Sense,” J. Phil. LVII (24), 764–765 (1960).Google Scholar
  63. Tennessen, H., “Knowledge versus Survival,” Inquiry 16, 407–414 and “Rejoinder to Naess,” ibid. ,417–418 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tennessen, H., Introduction to Empirical Semantics (University of Alberta Bookstore, Edmonton, Alberta, 1962).Google Scholar
  65. Tennessen, H., “Thirty-Six Lectures on Topics in Philosophy of Science” [University of Alberta Bookstore (Mimeo), Edmonton, Alberta, 1963].Google Scholar
  66. Tennessen, H., Language Analysis and Empirical Semantics. Eighteen Essays (University of Alberta Bookstore, Edmonton ,Alberta, 1964).Google Scholar
  67. Tennessen ,H., “Ordinary Language in Memoriam” Inquiry 8, 225–249 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tennessen, H., “History is Science: Preliminary Remarks towards an Empirical, Experimentally Oriented Behavioural Science of History,” Monist ,55 (1), 116–134 (1969).Google Scholar
  69. Tennessen, H., “Om det finnes absurde setninger,” Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 4 (2), 55–88 (1969).Google Scholar
  70. Tennessen, H., “Five Futile Attempts to Show that the Problem of Induction Is No Problem,” Paper read before The Boston Colloquium of Philosophy of Science ,May 1963, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  71. Tennessen, H., “Beyond Competence. A Plea for Linguistic-Communicative Transgressionalism,” Proceedings from the VIth European Congress of Linguistics ,1976, pp. 374–389.Google Scholar
  72. Tennessen, H., “The Petrified Skeleton in the Closet of Philosophy of Science,” Methodol. Sci. 8 (2–3), 125–135 (1975).Google Scholar
  73. Tennessen, H., “Scientists in Vain Wants of World Views,” Methodol. Sci. 9 (3), 120–128 (1976).Google Scholar
  74. Tennessen, H., “Against Linguistic Restrictionism in Science Methodology,” Methodol. Sci. 11 (1), 34– 46 (1978).Google Scholar
  75. Tennessen, H., “Permissible and Impermissible Locutions. Carnap’s Principle of Tolerance vs. ’Ordinary Language Philosophy,’ Logic and Language. Studies Dedicated to Professor Rudolf Carnap on the Occasion of His Seventieth Brithday ,B. H. Kazemier and D. Vuysje, editors (D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1962), p. 220f.Google Scholar
  76. Tennessen, H., Problems of Knowledge (van Gorcum, Assen, 1980).Google Scholar
  77. Tennessen, H., “From the Testimonies of the Senses to the Paradoxes of World Views,” in AnnaJs of Theoretical Psychology ,Vol. II (Plenum Press, New York, 1982), pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  78. Tennessen, H., “Science of History and Notions of Personality,” in Physics, Logic, and History ,W. Yourgrau, editor (Plenum Press, New York, 1970).Google Scholar
  79. Yourgrau, W., “Herman Bondi: Assumptions and Myth in Physical Theory,” inquiry 13 (3), 332–334 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herman Tennessen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations