Book contents
- Interpreting Mach
- Interpreting Mach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Ernst Mach’s Piano and the Making of a Psychophysical Imaginarium
- 2 Mother’s Milk and More
- 3 Meaningful Work
- 4 Mach on Analogy in Science
- 5 Ernst Mach’s Enlightenment Pragmatism
- 6 On the Philosophical and Scientific Relationship between Ernst Mach and William James
- 7 Ernst Mach and Friedrich Nietzsche
- 8 Abstraction, Pragmatism, and History in Mach’s Economy of Science
- 9 Holding the Hand of History
- 10 Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle
- 11 Narratives Divided
- 12 Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
- 13 The Case for Mach’s Neutral Monism
- Index
- References
11 - Narratives Divided
The Austrian and the German Mach
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- Interpreting Mach
- Interpreting Mach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Ernst Mach’s Piano and the Making of a Psychophysical Imaginarium
- 2 Mother’s Milk and More
- 3 Meaningful Work
- 4 Mach on Analogy in Science
- 5 Ernst Mach’s Enlightenment Pragmatism
- 6 On the Philosophical and Scientific Relationship between Ernst Mach and William James
- 7 Ernst Mach and Friedrich Nietzsche
- 8 Abstraction, Pragmatism, and History in Mach’s Economy of Science
- 9 Holding the Hand of History
- 10 Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle
- 11 Narratives Divided
- 12 Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
- 13 The Case for Mach’s Neutral Monism
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter analyses the careers of two distinct narratives about Mach’s philosophical legacy that prevailed among German-speaking physicists and philosophers for more than a generation. Planck’s polemic against Mach sired the idea of a Machian philosophical system that was irreconcilable with modern physics, Boltzmann’s legacy foremost. But Planck also bereaved Mach’s positivism of its naturalist foundation and identified it straight with phenomenalism. In contrast, many Austrians considered the epistemologies of Mach and Boltzmann as even mutually supportive for a defence of empiricist indeterminism. Taking positivism in its original, more general understanding, they underscored Mach’s broader anti-metaphysical and empiricist stance, eventually adopting him as a standard-bearer for the new movement of Logical Empiricism. While these understandings were not necessarily tied to a positive or negative assessment, they often amounted to simplifications, transformations, or even contortions of Mach’s thinking, which made it increasingly difficult to declare oneself in Mach’s footsteps and simultaneously to advocate scientific modernism.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Interpreting MachCritical Essays, pp. 208 - 234Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Banks, Erik C. 2003. Ernst Mach’s World Elements: A Study in Natural Philosophy. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, John T., Itagaki, Ryoichi, and Tanaka, Setsuko (eds.) 2001. Ernst Mach’s Vienna 1895–1930, or Phenomenalism as Philosophy of Science. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Boltzmann, Ludwig 1905/1974. Populäre Schriften. J. A. Barth; partly translated in Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Problems, ed. B. F. McGuinness. D. Reidel, 1974.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert 1916/1997. ‘Ernst Mach’, Physikalische Zeitschift 17: 101–104; English translation in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6. Princeton University Press, 1997, pp. 141–145.Google Scholar
Exner, Franz S. 1922 Vorlesungen über die physikalischen Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaften, 2nd edn. Franz Deuticke.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1984. ‘Mach’s Theory of Research and its Relation to Einstein’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15: 1–22.Google Scholar
Fleck, Ludwik 1935/1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Trans. Bradley, F. and Trenn, T. J.. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp 1910. ‘Review of Planck “Die Einheit des physikalischen Weltbildes”’, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 21: 46–47.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp 1916. ‘Review of the third edition of Planck’s ‘Das Prinzip der Erhaltung der Energie”’, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 27: 18.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp 1917/1961. ‘Die Bedeutung der physikalischen Erkenntnistheorie Machs für das Geistesleben der Gegenwart’, Die Naturwissenschaften 5: 65-72; English translation in Philipp Frank, Modern Science and its Philosophy. Collier, 1961, pp. 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Philipp 1929/1961. ‘Was bedeuten die gegenwärtigen physikalischen Theorien für die allgemeine Erkenntnislehre’, Die Naturwissenschaften 17: 971–977 and 987–994; English translation ‘Physical Theories of the Twentieth Century and School Philosophy’, in Philipp Frank, Modern Science and its Philosophy. Collier, 1961, pp. 96–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofer, Veronika and Stöltzner, Michael 2013. ‘Vienna Circle Historiographies’, in Galavotti, M. C., Nemeth, E., and Stadler, F. (eds.), European Philosophy of Science – Philosophy of Science in Europe and the Viennese Heritage. Springer, pp. 295–318.Google Scholar
Howard, Don 1992. ‘Einstein and Eindeutigkeit. A Neglected Theme in the Philosophical Background to General Relativity’, in Eisenstaedt, J. and Kox, A. J. (eds.), Studies in the History of General Relativity. Birkhäuser, pp. 155–243.Google Scholar
Kleinpeter, Hans 1913. Der Phänomenalismus. Eine naturwissenschaftliche Weltanschauung. J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1987. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1872/1909. Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit. J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1883/1988. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung. Historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eds. Wahsner, R. and von Borzeszkowski, H.-H.. Akademie-Verlag, 1989 (first published 1883); English translation, authorised by Mach, The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development. Open Court, 1988.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1905/1976. Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung. J. A. Barth; English translation, Knowledge and Error. D. Reidel, 1976.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1910. ‘Die Leitgedanken meiner naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnislehre und ihre Aufnahme durch die Zeitgenossen’, Scientia 7: 225–240.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1919. Die Prinzipien der Wärmelehre. Historisch-kritisch entwickelt. J. A. Barth (first published 1896); English translation, Principles of the Theory of Heat. Historically and Critically Elucidated. D. Reidel, 1986.Google Scholar
Ostwald, Wilhelm 1893. ‘Ueber das Princip des ausgezeichneten Falles’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig (Mathematisch-Physische Klasse) 45 : 599–603.Google Scholar
Petzoldt, Joseph 1890. ‘Maxima, Minima und Oekonomie’, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 14: 206–239, 354–366, 417–442.Google Scholar
Petzoldt, Joseph 1895. ‘Das Gesetz der Eindeutigkeit’, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie 19: 148–203.Google Scholar
Planck, Max 1887/1908. Das Prinzip der Erhaltung der Energie. Teubner (first edition 1887).Google Scholar
Planck, Max 1908/1944. ‘Die Einheit des physikalischen Weltbildes’, as reprinted in Planck, Max, Wege zur physikalischen Erkenntnis. S. Hirzel, 1944, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Planck, Max 1910. ‘Zur Machschen Theorie der physikalischen Erkenntnis. Eine Erwiderung’, Physikalische Zeitschrift 11: 1180–1190.Google Scholar
Planck, Max 1913/1944. ʻNeue Bahnen der physikalischen Erkenntnis’ (ʻNew Pathways of Physical Knowledge’), as reprinted in Planck, Max, Wege zur physikalischen Erkenntnis. S. Hirzel, 1944, pp. 42–53.Google Scholar
Planck, Max 1914/1944. ‘Dynamische und statistische Gesetzmässigkeit’ (‘On Dynamical and Statistical Regularities’), as reprinted in Planck, Max, Wege zur physikalischen Erkenntnis. S. Hirzel, 1944, pp. 54–67.Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz 1932/1979. ‘Positivismus und Realismus’, Erkenntnis 3: 1–31; English translation in Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, eds. Henk L. Mulder and Barbara F. B. van de Velde-Schlick. D. Reidel, 1979, pp. 259–284.Google Scholar
Sommerfeld, Arnold 1929. ‘Einige grundsätzliche Bemerkungen zur Wellenmechanik’, Physikalische Zeitschrift 30: 866–870.Google Scholar
Stöltzner, Michael 1999. ‘Vienna Indeterminism: Mach, Boltzmann, Exner’, Synthese 119: 85–111.Google Scholar
Stöltzner, Michael 2003. ‘The Principle of Least Action as the Logical Empiricist’s Shibboleth’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34: 285–318.Google Scholar
Stöltzner, Michael 2011. ‘The Causality Debates and their Preconditions. Revisiting the Forman Thesis from a Broader Perspective’, in Carson, C., Kojevnikov, A., and Trischler, H. (eds.), Quantum Mechanics and Weimar Culture. Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis. World Scientific, pp. 505–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stöltzner, Michael 2012. ‘Zur Genese der Schweidlerschen Schwankungen und der Brownschen Molekularbewegung’, in Fengler, S. and Sachse, C. (eds.), Kernforschung in Österreich. Wandlungen eines interdisziplinären Forschungsfeldes 1900–1978. Böhlau, pp. 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, Thomas 2013. ‘“Logical Positivism”–“Logical Empiricism”: What’s in a Name?’, Perspectives on Science 21: 58–99.Google Scholar
Mach, Verein Ernst 1929. Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis. Artur Wolf.Google Scholar
von Mises, Richard 1930. ‘Über kausale und statistische Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Physik’, Die Naturwissenschaften 18: 145–153.Google Scholar
von Mises, Richard 1939. Kleines Lehrbuch des Positivismus. Einführung in die empiristische Wissenschaftsauffassung. van Stockum.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by