This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
97 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 97
  1. A. M. Alpert (1980). Knowledge and Cosmos in the Philosophies of Mach and Ch'eng I: An Analysis of the Cognitive Structures of Empiricism in Two Cultures. Philosophy East and West 30 (2):163-179.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Murat BaÇ (2000). Structure Versus Process: Mach, Hertz, and the Normative Aspect of Science. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 31 (1):39-56.
    In the end of the nineteenth century, there was a remarkable ‘empiricist attitude’ found among certain philosopher-scientists, an attitude which arguably emerged in the main as a reaction to the anti-scientific mood prevalent in the culture that time. Those philosopher-scientists, such as Mach and Hertz, were particularly anxious to emphasize and laud the privileged status of the empirical dimension ofour scientific knowledge, distinguishing it carefully from the theoretical constructions and hypothetical entities that are ordinarily posited by scientists. Yet, as I (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Manuel Bächtold (2010). Saving Mach's View on Atoms. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 41 (1):1 - 19.
    According to a common belief concerning the Mach-Boltzmann debate on atoms, the new experiments performed in microphysics at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries confirmed Boltzmann's atomic hypothesis and disproved Mach's anti-atomic view. This paper intends to show that this belief is partially unjustified. Mach's view on atoms consists in fact of different kinds of arguments. While the new experiments in microphysics refute indeed his scientific arguments against the atomic hypothesis, his epistemological arguments are unaffected. In this regard, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Erik C. Banks (forthcoming). The Realistic Empiricism of Mach, James, and Russell. Cambridge University Press.
    The book revives the neutral monism of Mach, James, and Russell and applies the updated view to the problem of redefining physicalism, explaining the origins of sensation, and the problem of deriving extended physical objects and systems from an ontology of events.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Erik C. Banks (2012). Review of Blackmore. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 48 (4):395-397.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Erik C. Banks (2012). Sympathy for the Devil: Reconsidering Ernst Mach's Empiricism. [REVIEW] Metascience 21 (2):321-330.
    A 2012 survey article for Metascience which explains Mach's realistic brand of empiricism, contrasting it with the common phenomenalist reading of Mach by John Blackmore in two recent books.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Erik C. Banks (2010). Neutral Monism Reconsidered. Philosophical Psychology 23 (2):173-187.
    Neutral monism is a position in metaphysics defended by Mach, James, and Russell in the early twentieth century. It holds that minds and physical objects are essentially two different orderings of the same underlying neutral elements of nature. This paper sets out some of the central concepts, theses and the historical background of ideas that inform this doctrine of elements. The discussion begins with the classic neutral monism of Mach, James, and Russell in the first part of the paper, then (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Erik C. Banks (2004). The Philosophical Roots of Ernst Mach's Economy of Thought. Synthese 139 (1):23-53.
    A full appreciation for Ernst Mach's doctrine of the economy of thought must take account of his direct realism about particulars (elements) and his anti-realism about space-time laws as economical constructions. After a review of thought economy, its critics and some contemporary forms, the paper turns to the philosophical roots of Mach's doctrine. Mach claimed that the simplest, most parsimonious theories economized memory and effort by using abstract concepts and laws instead of attending to the details of each individual event (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Erik C. Banks (2003). Ernst Mach's World Elements. Kluwer.
    A consideration of Mach's elements, his philosophy of neutral monism, and philosophy of physics, especially space and time, much of it based on unpublished writings from the Nachlass and other original sources. The historical connection between Mach and logical positivism is shown to be superficial at best, and Mach's elements are shown to be mind independent natural qualities (world-elements) with dynamic force, not limited to human sensations.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Erik C. Banks (2002). Ernst Mach's ''New Theory of Matter'' and His Definition of Mass. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 33 (4):605-635.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Erik C. Banks (2001). Ernst Mach and the Episode of the Monocular Depth Sensations. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 37 (4):327-348.
    A look at Mach's work on monocular stereoscopy with relation to Mach Bands and the sensation of space.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Julian B. Barbour & Bruno Bertotti (1982). Mach's Principle and the Structure of Dynamical Theories. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London:295--306.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Erich Becher (1905). The Philosophical Views of Ernst Mach. Philosophical Review 14 (5):535-562.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Manjoulekha Bhattacharya (1972). Ernst Mach. Studi Internazionali di Filosofia 4:145-182.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Manjulekha Bhattacharya (1972). Ernst Mach: Neutral Monism. Studi Internazionali Di Filosofia 4:145-182.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. J. T. Blackmore (1989). Book Reviews : Mach I, Mach II, Einstein Und Die Relativitatstheorie-Eine Falschung Und Ihre Folgen. By Gereon Wolters. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1987. Pp. 474. D.M. 188. [REVIEW] Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19 (2):235-237.
  17. John Blackmore (1989). Ernst Mach Leaves 'the Church of Physics'. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40 (4):519-540.
    A study of the published and unpublished parts of Ernst Mach's last notebook (1910–14) suggests that Max Planck's attack (1908–11) provoked Mach into opposing ‘The Church of Physics’ more strongly than previously realized. Shortly after Mach threatened to leave the discipline if belief in atoms were required. Albert Einstein tried to persuade him to accept atomism (September 1910). Mach declined to mention Einstein again in his publications and increasingly criticized ‘The Church of Physics’. Evidence that Mach opposed relativity theory and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. John Blackmore (1985). An Historical Note on Ernst Mach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36 (3):299-305.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. John T. Blackmore, Ryōichi Itagaki & S. Tanaka (eds.) (2010). Ernst Mach's Graz (1864-1867): Where Much Science and Philosophy Were Developed. Distributed by Enfield Publishing and Distribution Co..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. John T. Blackmore, Ryōichi Itagaki & S. Tanaka (eds.) (2009). Ernst Mach's Influence Spreads. Distributed by Enfield Pub. And Distribution Co..
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Richard J. Blackwell (1971). "Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6: Ernst Mach: Physicist and Philosopher," Ed. R. S. Cohen and R. J. Seeger. [REVIEW] The Modern Schoolman 48 (2):191-192.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. B. H. Bode (1916). Ernst Mach and the New Empiricism. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 13 (11):281-290.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Franz Brentano (1964). Zwei Briefe an E. Mach. In K. P. Heller (ed.), Ernst Mach: Wegbereiter der modernen Physik. Springer.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. S. G. Brush (1968). Mach and Atomism. Synthese 18 (2-3):192 - 215.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Mario Bunge (1972). Book Review:Mach's Philosophy of Science J. Bradley. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 39 (2):266-.
  26. Paul Busch & Christopher Shilladay, Complementarity and Uncertainty in Mach-Zehnder Interferometry and Beyond.
    A coherent account of the connections and contrasts between the principles of complementarity and uncertainty is developed starting from a survey of the various formalizations of these principles. The conceptual analysis is illustrated by means of a set of experimental schemes based on Mach-Zehnder interferometry. In particular, path detection via entanglement with a probe system and (quantitative) quantum erasure are exhibited to constitute instances of joint unsharp measurements of complementary pairs of physical quantities, path and interference observables. The analysis uses (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Paul Carus (1911). Mach and His Work. The Monist 21 (1):19-42.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Paul Carus (1908). Ernst Mach, In Congratulation on His Seventieth Birthday. The Monist 18 (1):124-125.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Paul Carus (1906). Professor Mach's Philosophy. The Monist 16 (3):331-356.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Paul Carus (1893). Prof Ernst Mach's Term Sensation. The Monist 3 (2):298-299.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Robert S. Cohen (1968). Ernst Mach: Physics, Perception and the Philosophy of Science. Synthese 18 (2-3):132 - 170.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Robert DiSalle (1990). Book Review:Mach I, Mach II, Einstein, und Die Relativitatstheorie. Eine Falschung und Ihre Folgen Gereon Wolter. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 57 (4):712-.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Paul Feyerabend (1980). Zahar on Mach, Einstein and Modern Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 31 (3):273-282.
  34. Paul K. Feyerabend (1984). Mach's Theory of Research and its Relation to Einstein. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 15 (1):1-22.
  35. Patrick L. Gardiner (1969/1968). Nineteenth-Century Philosophy. New York, Free Press.
  36. George Goe (1972). Archimedes' Theory of the Lever and Mach's Critique. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2 (4):329-345.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Pietro Gori (2013). Nietzsche on Truth: A Pragmatic View? In Renate Reschke (ed.), Wirklich. Wirklichkeit. Wirklichkeiten? Friedrich Nietzsche über 'wahre' und 'scheinbare' Welten, Nietzscheforschung Bd. 20. Akademie Verlag.
    In this paper I deal with Nietzsche's theory of knowledge in the context of 19th century epistemology. In particular, I argue that, even though Nietzsche shows the ontological lack of content of truths (both on the theoretic and on the moral plane), he nevertheless leaves the space for a practical use of them, in a way that can be compared with William James' pragmatism. I thus deal with Nietzsche's and James' concept of "truth", and show their relationship with some outcomes (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Pietro Gori (2012). Nietzsche as Phenomenalist? In Marco Brusotti, Günter Abel & Helmut Heit (eds.), Nietzsches Wissenschaftsphilosophie. deGruyter.
    During the second decade of the 20th century Hans Kleinpeter, an Austrian scholar devoted to the development of the modern science, published some brief papers on Nietzsche’s thought. Kleinpeter has been one of the main upholders of Mach’s epistemology and probably the first who connected his ideas with the philosophy of Nietzsche. In his book on Der Phänomenalismus (1913) he described a new world view that arose in the 19th century, a perspective that ‒ according to him ‒ completely contrasted (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Pietro Gori (2011). Nietzsche, Mach y la metafisica del yo. Estudios Nietzsche 11:99-112.
    In Part One of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche writes that anyone who believes in “immediate certainties” such as “I think” encounters a series of “metaphysical questions”. The most important of these “problems of intellectual knowledge” concerns the existence of an ‘I’, as much as our believing it to be the cause of thinking. Therefore, any remark about our mental faculties directly follows from our defining what we could call the basic psychical unity, i.e. our view on higher-level psychical functions (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Andy Hamilton (1990). Ernst Mach and the Elimination of Subjectivity. Ratio 3 (2):117-135.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Gary Hatfield (2002). Sense-Data and the Philosophy of Mind: Russell, James, and Mach. Principia 6 (2):203-230.
    The theory of knowledge in early twentieth-century Anglo Amencan pht losophy was orzented toward phenomenally descnbed cognition There was a healthy respect for the mind body problem, which meant that phenomena in both the mental and physzcal domam were talcen senously Bertrand Russell's developmg positzon on sense-data and momentary particulars drew upcm, and ultimately became lzke, the neutral monism of Ernst Mach and William James Due to a more iecent behavzonst and physicalist inspired "fear of the mental", this development has (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Michael Heidelberger, Der Psychophysische Parallelismus: Von Fechner Und Mach Zu Davidson Und Wieder Zurück.
    In philosophischen wie nichtphilosophischen Darstellungen wird heutzutage der Ursprung des Leib-Seele-Problems überwiegend mit dem kartesischen Dualismus in Verbindung gebracht. Es wird die Meinung vertreten, daß erst durch Descartes’ Aufteilung des Menschen (und damit der Welt) in die beiden einander ausschließenden Substanzen der res extensa und der res cogitans das philosophische Grundübel in die Leib-Seele-Philosophie gekommen sei.1 Folgerichtig ist man fest davon überzeugt, daß sich das Problem nur lösen läßt, wenn man es an der Wurzel packt und konsequent Descartes’ ontologischen Dualismus (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Michael Heidelberger (2010). Functional Relations and Causality in Fechner and Mach. Philosophical Psychology 23 (2):163 – 172.
    In the foundations of Fechner's psychophysics, the concept of “functional relation” plays a highly relevant role in three different respects: (1) in respect to the principles of measurement, (2) in respect to the mind-body problem, and (3) in respect to the concept of a law of nature. In all three cases, it is important to explain the difference between a functional dependency of a variable upon another and a causal relationship between two (or more) variables. In all three respects, Ernst (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Klaus Hentschel (1985). On Feyerabend's Version of 'Mach's Theory of Research and its Relation to Einstein'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 16 (4):387-394.
  45. Finngeir Hiorth & Michael Mach (1989). Books on Philosophy and Religion. Philosophia 19 (1):85-96.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Christoph Hoffmann (2013). Superpositions Ludwig Mach and Étienne-Jules Marey's Studies in Streamline Photography. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):1-11.
  47. Giora Hon (2004). Gödel, Einstein, Mach: Casting Constraints on All-Embracing Concepts. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 9 (1):25-64.
    Can a theory turn back, as it were, upon itselfand vouch for its own features? That is, canthe derived elements of a theory be the veryprimitive terms that provide thepresuppositions of the theory? This form of anall-embracing feature assumes a totality inwhich there occurs quantification over thattotality, quantification that is defined bythis very totality. I argue that the Machprinciple exhibits such a feature ofall-embracing nature. To clarify the argument,I distinguish between on the one handcompleteness and on the other wholeness andtotality, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Hans Kleinpeter (1906). On the Monism of Professor Mach. The Monist 16 (2):161-168.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Stanisław Kramsztyk (1898). Dr. Ernst Mach. Die Principen der Warmelehre. Przegląd Filozoficzny 1 (2).
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. S. F. L. (1980). Beyond Marx and Mach. Review of Metaphysics 33 (4):783-785.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 97