[hist-analytic] Analyticity, Russell, Eddington

steve bayne baynesrb at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 3 17:08:19 EST 2009

An enormous debt of gratitude to Bruce Aune for 
showing me "how it is to be done." Thanks, also,
to other participants on this topic. 

I have a number of things to say but I need to 
think on them a bit more. I have been thinking
on them, a bit. When I take up my response to 
the posters I will have in mind two things.

First, I will have in mind Russell's commentary
on logical form and how his views appear to
stand opposed to Eddington's.

In preparing my thoughts, I thought I would 
"share with you" (".od" I hate the expression)
two items I've added to Hist-Analytic.

The first is Russell's contribution to the 
Encyclopedia of Unified Science (1938). It can
be reached at:


The other is Eddington's statement on 
"Two Tables." it can be had at:


Before closing a hurried remark: if analyticity 
fails, and it is understood one way, then given
that reductionism drops out, then there is no
physicalistic language in the sense Carnap conceived
it. But there is a consequence, I believe of 
equally generality. There is a sense in which we
can construe "structure" as in some sense what
remains constant over transformations between
analytically equivalent, intertranslataable,
languages. This is analogous to what Russell is
talking about with respect to physics and topology.
Note the tension on the subject of measured quantities
we find in Russell and those we find (see the underlined
part in the selection). If analyticity evaporates,
there is a sense in which structure may, as well.
What would be analogous to topologically equivalent
geometries in the area of translation. Wouldn't we
consider "meaning"?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20090203/6f7b07d4/attachment.html>

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list