Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:24:56.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ernst Mach: His Work, Life and Influence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

I. Grattan-Guinness
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Essay Reviews
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1974 , pp. 75 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In his Objective knowledge (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar, Popper calls it ‘the third world’, and expresses the distinction under discussion here in terms of ‘common-sense realism’ (the world is at it is) as opposed to ‘common-sense epistemology’ (our theories about the world, involving the interpretation of our appearances, which are not necessarily like the world as it is; and furthermore, we cannot show that they are like the world, even if they are).

2 Kant, I., Critique of pure reason, B 274.Google Scholar

3 Peirce, C. S., Collected Papers, vii (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), art. 485.Google Scholar

4 I have discussed this historiography in greater detail in my ‘Not from nowhere. History and philosophy behind mathematics education’, International journal of mathematical education in science and technology iv (1973), 421–53 (445–8).Google Scholar

5 Among recent literature on Mach not listed in Blackmore's bibliography is d'Elia, A., Ernst Mach (Florence, 1971)Google Scholar. Her discussion of Mach's physics is more substantial than Blackmore's, but Mach's philosophical views are much less closely studied and little notice seems to be taken of unpublished materials; thus her book complements Blackmore's in many ways.