Essay Sample about Rudolf Carnap's Works

📌Category: Philosophers, Philosophical Works, Philosophy
📌Words: 592
📌Pages: 3
📌Published: 21 February 2022

It was noticed by Rudolf Carnap that philosophers comprehend the notion of observability in a narrower sense than a physicist. Needless to say, observability in the eyes of a philosopher is what can be perceived with one’s direct senses or can be measured by simple, direct techniques. On the other hand, physicists perceive the concept of observability on not only a direct scale but a quantitative scale as well. Since there is no exact definition when defining “observability,” observable entities and nonobservable entities quickly became an arbitrary topic. However, arbitrariness is not necessarily bad; Carnap realized the relationship between the empirical law and the theoretical law as nonobservable entities gave rise to new phenomena that have never been observed by the human eye. 

In his work, Carnap introduces two, unique laws. The first law, the empirical law, a law containing terms that are directly observable by the senses, or, measurable by simple, direct techniques, and second, the theoretical law, a law that is based on nonobservable entities (Carnap, page 2-3). In the eyes of a philosopher, what is deemed as “observable” is an entity that can be directly perceived by one’s direct senses, such as“‘blue,’ ‘hard,’ ‘hot’” (Miller, lecture 6, page 1). These properties fall into the category of empirical law due to their characteristics that can be picked up by human senses. Scientists, like physicists, would agree that those properties are indeed observable. However, they broaden the spectrum of what can be claimed as “observable” by including quantitative magnitudes, such as weight and temperature (Miller, lecture 6, page 3). Although they are not directly observable, it remains under the criteria of empirical law solely because quantitative magnitudes are measurable by simple techniques. Due to this, there are no true definitions that distinguish observable entities and nonobservable entities since there are many different ways to define what is observable and what is not. 

Although there are obvious differences between empirical law and theoretical law, drawing a line between the two laws is surprisingly difficult. The reason for this is due to the correspondence rule. Essentially, the correspondence rule allows a connection between both observable and theoretical terms; sometimes, an observable can be explained by theoretical terms (Miller, lecture 7, page 2). However, observational terms cannot define a theoretical concept because unobservable entities cannot be described by observational terms. Thus, only theoretical terms can describe theoretical concepts. The idea behind Carnap’s thoughts is simply because observational terms can be defined since they are directly observed, whereas theoretical ones cannot because they are unobservable. As a result, the large distinction between observable entities and unobservable entities is highly arbitrary. 

Despite the vague distinction between observable entities and nonobservable entities, Carnap deduced arbitrariness is not bad. After all, the theoretical concept of gravity was predicted a new phenomenon that has never been observed by the human eye. He believes one should not force a definition upon a theoretical term because it is unobservable. This is what inspired his creation of correspondence rules. To get at least an understanding of theoretical concepts, he created the correspondence rule in order to interpret unobservable entities. Despite the interpretation he placed upon the nonobservables, Carnap insists the interpretation is “incomplete” as an exact definition cannot be placed on a pictureless entity. Carnap believes explicitly defined concepts may harm science itself (Miller, lecture 7, page 5). Therefore, the lack of specification between observable entities and nonobservable entities permits the continuous modification of interpretations and the addition of new correspondence rules.

Ultimately, it is possible to distinguish observable entities and unobservable entities as they are two different existences. However, the reason why Carnap believes arbitrariness is positive is that the inability to distinguish where the boundary is creates a connection between observable terms and theoretical terms, allowing science to create new interpretations and terms for their neverending theories. Thus, the vagueness and lack of distinguishment allow the continuous development of science.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.