Summary
This collection of essays by Philip W. Anderson argues that scientific knowledge involves a necessary interplay between observation of particulars and the intellectual understanding of laws or causes. The book distinguishes between "a priori" knowledge, which is independent of experience and relates to the essence of thought or fundamental truths, and "a posteriori" knowledge, which is derived from particular observations and moves from effect to cause. Anderson contends that these two spheres, while distinct, are complementary and essential for comprehensive understanding, rejecting the notion that either empiricism or intuitionism alone can fully explain scientific knowledge.
The essays explore the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry, examining how empirical data is correlated through intellectual elements and how judgments, even simple ones, imply a correlation. The work addresses the historical debate between "Intuitionalists" and "Empiricists," suggesting they often argue at cross-purposes by failing to recognize the complementary nature of knowledge derived from particulars and knowledge of laws or causes. Readers gain insight into the philosophical distinctions that inform scientific reasoning and the necessity of both empirical observation and intellectual synthesis.
Key concepts
- A priori — Knowledge or judgments regarded as independent of experience and belonging to the essence of thought.
- A posteriori — Knowledge or judgments derived from particular observations, moving from effect to cause.
- Knowledge based on particulars — Empirical data gathered from isolated observations.
- Knowledge of laws or causes — Intellectual understanding of underlying principles that explain phenomena.
- Correlation of empirical data — The intellectual process that links and makes sense of observed facts.
- Complementary spheres — The idea that a priori and a posteriori knowledge work together and are mutually necessary for complete understanding.
From the book
It is probably a corruption, perhaps deliberate, of Abednebo, “servant of Nebo,” though G. Hoffmann thinks that the original form was Abednergo, for Abednergal, “servant of the god Nergal.” C. H. Toy compares Barnebo, “son of Nebo”; of which he regards Barnabas as a slightly disguised form ( Jewish Encyclopaedia ).← Abednego 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 Abeken, Heinrich Abel → See also Heinrich Abeken on Wikipedia ; and our 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer . 12977 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica , Volume 1 — Abeken, Heinrich ABEKEN, HEINRICH (1809–1872), German theologian and Prussian official, was born at Berlin on the 8th of August 1809. He studied theology at Berlin and in 1834 became chaplain to the Prussian embassy in Rome. In 1841 he visited England, being…
Popular questions readers ask
- If you had to explain the core conflict and significance of the "Alabama" Arbitration to a peer who knows nothing about 19th-century international law, what essential points would you include to make them understand *why* it was a problem and *how* it was addressed?
- The text states the "Alabama" case is important "both from a historical and a juridical point of view." How do these two perspectives intertwine and influence each other in the context of the arbitration, and what specific details from the text illustrate this?
- Analyze the practical implications of the British government's proclamation of neutrality, particularly its recognition of the Confederates as "belligerents." How did this decision directly contribute to the circumstances that led to the "Alabama" incident?
- The author highlights the value of arbitration "as a means of averting war." Based on the specific details provided, what potentially escalatory outcomes was the "Alabama" Arbitration successful in preventing, and what might have been the consequences if it had failed?
- Consider the actions of the Confederate agencies in England and the building of the "Alabama." From the perspective of international law, what responsibilities did Great Britain have as a neutral power to prevent such activities, and how did the events surrounding the "Alabama" challenge these responsibilities?