Spencer Heath Archive

Item 2258

Extract from letter to Heath at Roadsend Gardens from W.V. Quine, 65 Sparks Street, Cambridge MA (check original to be sure the equations have been transcribed correctly). (Note also that Quine is credited in Wikipedia for having quipped that “philosophy of science is philosophy enough.” In W.V. Quine, “Mr Strawson on Logical Theory,” Mind Vol. 62 No. 248. October 1953. This would seem to be significant for Heath’s concept of philosophy.)

July 19, 1940

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Heath:

 

I very much regret having delayed nine months in answering your letter; but between struggling with recurrent illness and struggling to finish a book, I have allowed my correspondence to get into scandalous shape.

 

     I am happy to say that the secretary for the Unity of Science Congress of last September is not myself but Prof. C. W. Morris, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Chicago; I was merely   a sort of quartermaster, having been appointed by the president of Harvard (not by the Congress) as secretary of the committee for local accommodations. So Prof. Morris is the one to consult with regard to your copy of the proceedings; but I can tell you that the outlook is dark, for I have recently asked him about my copy. The fact is that the Proceedings have been held up by the war. I don’t know what the authorities of the Unity of Science Congress are planning to do. It has recently been learned that Neurath, the head of the organization, has escaped from Holland to England.

 

I have a couple of remarks to make on your paper “The Energy Concept of Population.” First a minor point: I take it that the item “output per individual” at the top of page 8 should be “annual output per individual;” for the year is taken as time-unit in the succeeding items. Second, and presumably more important, I observe that your coefficient E defined at the foot of p. 8 is more simply describable as 1-20, in view of the

D

fact that W is defined as DN. For,

 

   

E = N(D-20) = N(D-20) = DN-20N = DN – 20N = 1-20.

            W        DN       DN     DN    DN     D

 

Incidentally it follows that E is independent of N.

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ W. V. Quine