Dear all,
our next speaker in the
Philosophy of Science Colloquium organized by the
Institute Vienna Circle is Romy Vekony (IVC Fellow,
Florida State University), who will give a talk on
May 21, 4.45-6.15 pm.
All are welcome!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philosophy
of Science Colloquium TALK: Romy Vekony (IVC
Fellow, Florida State University)
To Speak of
Abstract Objects
Philosophy of Science Colloquium
The Institute Vienna Circle holds a Philosophy of
Science Colloquium with talks by our present
fellows.
Date: 21/05/2026
Time: 16h45
Venue: New Institute Building (NIG),
Universitätsstraße 7, 1010 Wien, HS 3C
Abstract:
There has been a resurgence of interest
in Carnap's philosophy, particularly his Empiricism,
Semantics and Ontology (ESO) (Carnap, 1950). Many
scholars (Ecklund (2009, 2013, 2016, 2023, 2025),
Flocke (2020, 2024), Broughton (2021), Sidelle
(2016)) are interested in the historical Carnap's
proposal for constructing linguistic frameworks.
For example, Matti Eklund (2009, 2016) defends a
'language pluralist' view where, under Carnap's
Principle of Tolerance, frameworks simply amount to
interpreted languages, and a sentence can differ in
truth value depending on the meaning that the
language assigns to it. He contrasts this with what
he calls a 'language relativist' view which holds
that sentences are true or false only relative to a
framework. I argue that both these interpretations
miss Carnap's motivation for writing ESO.
Additionally, Flocke (2020) has argued for another
interpretation of Carnapian frameworks that supports
her position on how Carnap attempts to reconcile his
empiricism with the existence of abstract objects.
However, I argue that Carnap was explicit in ESO
about how all he needed to do was reconcile
empiricism with the talk of abstract objects.
I believe both Eklund and Flocke misunderstand
Carnap because they downplay his pragmatic attitude
towards linguistic tools. My project aims to show if
we appreciate Carnap's pragmatist bent by examining
broader attitude towards languages in his historical
and social context, we can forge a path to a new
interpretation of his frameworks that I believe is
more faithful to his original intentions in ESO to
allow the empiricist to speak of abstract objects
without ontological commitment.