Ernst Mach

Gravity remains the most elusive field. Its relationship with the electromagnetic field is poorly understood. Relativity and quantum mechanics describe the aforementioned fields, respectively. Bosons and fermions are often credited with responsibility for the interactions of force and matter. It is shown here that fermions factually determine the gravitational structure of the universe, while bosons are responsible for the three established and described forces. Underlying the relationships of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a symmetrical probability distribution of fermions and (...) bosons. Werner Heisenberg's assertion that the Schr\'f6dinger wave function and Heisenberg matrices do not describe one thing is confirmed. It is asserted that the conscious observation of Schr\'f6dinger's wave function never causes its collapse, but invariably produces the classical space described by the Heisenberg picture. As a result, the Heisenberg picture can be explained and substantiated only in terms of conscious observation of the Schr\'f6dinger wave function. Schr\'f6dinger\'92s picture is defined as information space, while Heisenberg\'92s picture is defined as classical space. B-theory postulates that although the Schr\'f6dinger picture and the Heisenberg picture are mathematically connected, the former is eternal while the latter is discrete, existing only as the sequence of discrete conscious moments. Inferences related to information-based congruence between physical and mental phenomena have long been discussed in the literature. Moreover, John Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty about how the physical and the mental complement each other. Bishop Berkeley and Ernst Mach, to name two who have addressed the subject, simply reject the concept of the material world altogether. Professor Hardy defined physical reality as 'dubious and elusive'. It is proposed in this paper that physical reality, or physical instantiation in the classical space as described by Heisenberg picture is one thing with the consciousness. (shrink)

Wilhelm Ostwald, Ernst Mach y Pierre Duhem se encuentran entre los más relevantes críticos del atomismo de finales del siglo XIX. Repasamos y analizamos los argumentos que aducen dichos autores para oponerse a la concepción atomista de la materia. Mostramos cómo esos argumentos surgen de posiciones filosóficas de fondo sobre el fundamento de la naturaleza, el objeto de la ciencia y el papel de la metafísica. Comparamos dichas posiciones filosóficas. Y enmarcamos la crítica del atomismo en el problema epistemológico más (...) general de la explicación para mostrar la tensión entre explicación y experiencia, y su relación con la metafísica. (shrink)

Erik Banks does several things in this slender yet substantial book on realistic empiricism (aka neutral monism). First, he encapsulates the main ideas of this tradition. While he goes into greater depth on some of these ideas than other introductions do, these pages are still accessible to nonspecialists. Second, he traces the the history of this tradition through the Austrian scientist, Ernst Mach, the American psychologist, William James, the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, and others. These four chapters are a valuable (...) source for readers seeking to understand neutral monism in depth. Third, he develops his own version of neutral monism to deal with problems in the philosophies of mind and science. Most of my commentary will pertain to his own theory, which has some similar roots to my own. (shrink)

Traduction de l’article de Ernst Mach, « Die Leitgedanken meiner naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnislehre und ihre Aufnahme durch die Zeitgenossen » [Les idées directrices de ma théorie scientifique de la connaissance et leur réception par mes contemporains], paru dans Scientia, 7 (1910), p. 225–240. Dans la première partie du texte, Mach expose sa théorie économico-biologique de la connaissance en en retraçant la genèse, des premières années de sa formation intellectuelle jusqu’à la rédaction de ses derniers ouvrages. Il indique également les points de (...) rapprochement possibles avec les doctrines de certains physiciens, mais aussi avec celles de philosophes dont il s’estime particulièrement proche. Dans la seconde partie du texte, Mach répond point par point à la polémique amorcée par Planck et donne ainsi une image plus complexe de sa pensée, loin du dogmatisme que l’on associe ordinairement au positivisme. (shrink)

Cet article est une présentation de la traduction en français du texte de Mach, « Die Leitgedanken meiner naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnislehre und ihre Aufnahme durch die Zeitgenossen » [Les idées directrices de ma théorie scientifique de la connaissance et leur réception par mes contemporain] (1910), qui est le dernier exposé synthétique, par le physicien autrichien lui-même, de son Erkenntnistheorie. C’est aussi une réponse à la polémique amorcée par Max Planck, lors d’une conférence prononcée à l’université de Leiden en 1908. Nous exposons (...) les deux principales objections de Planck et les confrontons aux déclarations de Mach ; ce faisant, nous montrons ce qu’elles peuvent avoir d’injustifiées et de philosophiquement insatisfaisantes, caricaturant les positions de ce dernier comme celles d’un « sensualiste » ou d’un « positiviste » naïf. En faisant référence à des textes moins bien connus du corpus machien, nous en proposons une autre image, plus complexe et plus fidèle à l’esprit véritable de son auteur, pour lequel la spéculation – même métaphysique – n’est pas à bannir. Néanmoins, nous ne minimisons pas pour autant l’opposition qui existe entre Mach et Planck concernant ce que doit être une physikalische Weltbild : là où le premier défend une position instrumentaliste, insistant sur la nécessaire distinction entre moyens théoriques et finalités pratiques et sur leur évolution historique, censée nous prémunir contre tout dogmatisme ou absolutisme, le second défend une position réaliste forte, affirmant que la science est en mesure d’atteindre l’essence sous l’apparence et de délivrer des connaissances entièrement soustraites à la contingence de leur découverte et de leur devenir. (shrink)

Nineteenth-century German-speaking scientific philosophy (which is broader than philosophy of science as it concerns every aspect of philosophy from a scientific standpoint and not just science fro...

This paper has a twofold aim. On the one hand, it explores the extent to which Mach was inspired by Kant’s approach to philosophical inquiry and tried to further elaborate it through his historico-critical method for enlightening scientific knowledge claims. On the other hand, it argues that the focus on the situated character of these claims that is implied in Mach’s epistemology makes it possible to compare his view to recent attempts to defend a perspectival realist account of scientific knowledge, (...) thus revealing the relevance of Mach’s own approach as a methodology in the philosophy of science. (shrink)

Mach repudiated Newton's argument for absolute time. He denied there is such a thing as time itself that exists independently of any external change. In doing so, Mach failed to appreciate Newton's scientific practice. Absolute time is intrinsically related to Newton's laws of motion and the method of fluxions. Commentators have noted similarities between Mach's rejection of Newtonian time and his rejection of the independent existence of atoms. In this article, it shall be argued that the juxtaposition of absolute time (...) and the atomic theory is unsound. Mach had good reasons to question the existence of substantial time, and he went on to provide an alternative, ontologically relational account. Whereas his dismissal of atoms can be seen as a questionable form of “phenomenalism” or “positivism,” this is not the case regarding his position on time. (shrink)

Until recently, leading work on the philosophy of thought experiments mistakenly credited Mach with coining the term. While Ørsted’s prior use has become more widely acknowledged, there remains a c...

The Stiftung Ökologischer Landbau (SÖL), founded in the mid-1970s, set out to promote organic farming in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). To this end, it brought together protagonists from the scientific community and the environmental movement to build a knowledge base for organic agriculture by drawing on the science-based concepts of natural and organic farming of the 1920s and 1930s. Based on the history of its founding, its structure, and work, this article demonstrates that temporality played an essential role (...) in the establishment of alternative bodies of knowledge. Contrary to the established model of linear scientific-technological progress, the aim was to return to bodies of knowledge and practices that had largely disappeared from the scientific canon of knowledge, but also from agricultural practice, in previous processes of forgetting and marginalization. This is exemplified by the so-called “spade diagnosis,” a method developed in the 1930s by soil biologists to assess arable soil. Concepts and practice of counter-knowledge amounted to a model of conservative modernization in organic farming. (shrink)

Some popular views of Ernst Mach cast him as a philosopher-scientist averse to imaginative practices in science. The aim of this analysis is to address the question of whether or not imagination is compatible with Machian philosophy of science. I conclude that imagination is not only compatible, but essential to realizing the aim of science in Mach’s biologico-economical view. I raise the possible objection that my conclusion is undermined by Mach’s criticism of Isaac Newton’s famous “bucket experiment.” I conclude that (...) Mach’s issue lies not with thought experimentation, tout court, but with the improper use of thought experimentation as it relates to the aim of the biologico-economical development of science. (shrink)

Some popular views of Ernst Mach cast him as a philosopher-scientist averse to imaginative practices in science. The aim of this analysis is to address the question of whether or not imagination is compatible with Machian philosophy of science. I conclude that imagination is not only compatible but essential to realizing the aim of science in Mach’s biologico-economical view. I raise the possible objection that my conclusion is undermined by Mach’s criticism of Isaac Newton’s famous “bucket experiment.” I conclude that (...) Mach’s issue lies not with thought experimentation, tout court, but with the improper use of thought experimentation as it relates to the aim of the biologico-economical development of science. (shrink)

Cognitive psychology is one of the most significant areas of modern science related to the creation of artificial intelligence. The multifactorial conditionality of cognition is captured in variety of philosophical concepts, some of which can have applied meaning, including for cognitive psychology. The article considers two approaches that address diametrically opposite factors affecting cognitive activity. On the one hand, the diversity of cognition phenomena – from simple to the most complex – depends on the psycho-physiological processes associated ultimately with physical (...) energy. E. Mach based his concept on the ontology of psychophysiological parallelism. Back in the early 20th century, he designed the possibility of technical embodying of the results of his research on various phenomena and mechanisms of human cognitive activity. On the other hand, in the first decades of the 20th century, Husserl claims to create his own methodology for psychological science, which simultaneously appears as the theoretical level of this field of science due to the fact that it explores the essence of the entire variety of cognitive phenomena, such as consciousness in its various variations, mental states, values and logical structure. Ideas/meanings peculiar only to human cognition acquire the character of “ideal objectivity” through written language. Written language, according to Husserl, is a way of virtual timeless storage and increment of ideas and meanings. At the same time, it can also become a means of their material, including technical, implementation. Mach in his methodology focuses on the physical, physiological, and biological aspects of the process of cognition; Husserl focused on existential and humanitarian factors that give cognitive activity a proper human character. This is the alternative of these approaches, which does not exclude the possibility of their mutual complementarity. (shrink)

This paper is about the remarkable explosion in the literature on thought experiments since the 1980s. It enters uncharted territory. The year 1986 is of particular interest: James R. Brown presents his Platonism about thought experiments for the first time in Dubrovnik, and in Pittsburgh John D. Norton shares his empiricist approach with participants in what was probably the 20th century’s very first major conference on thought experiments. It was the time when philosophy of science had taken a pluralistic turn, (...) and the paper develops the notion that this is a key factor in the outburst of discussions about thought experiments in the 1980s. (shrink)

The paper provides a thorough account of the relationship between Ernst Mach’s thought and that of an apparently more intellectually distant near-contemporary, Friedrich Nietzsche. The consistency of their views is in fact substantial, as I try to show within the paper. Despite their interests being different, both Mach and Nietzsche were concerned with the same issues about our intellectual relationship with the external world, dealing with the same questions and pursuing a common aim of eliminating worn-out philosophical conceptions. Moreover, it (...) can be argued that both Mach and Nietzsche converged on what we now know as the problem of realism versus anti-realism in the philosophy of science, and that they both rejected ‘representational’ (realist) conceptions of science in favour of a certain sort of pragmatic anti-realism, whose focus was on the role science plays as a means of orientation. (shrink)

Ernst Mach’s definition of the relationship between thoughts and facts is well known, but the question of how Mach conceived of their actual relationship has received much less attention. This paper aims to address this gap in light of Mary B. Hesse’s view of a postempiricist approach to natural science. As this paper will show, this view is characterized by a constructivist conception of the relationship between theory and facts that seems to be consistent with Mach’s observations on scientific knowledge. (...) The paper first explores Hesse’s account of postempiricism and her project of a new epistemology. It then considers Ernst Mach’s conception of facts as the middle term of a triad of concepts that includes thoughts and elements as extreme terms. Finally, the paper will offer concluding remarks on Mach’s contribution to the debate on scientific realism and his attempt to redefine the notions of correspondence and objectivity in science. (shrink)

Ernst Mach’s definition of the relationship between thoughts and facts is well known, but the question of how Mach conceived of their actual relationship has received much less attention. This paper aims to address this gap in light of Mary B. Hesse’s view of a postempiricist approach to natural science. As this paper will show, this view is characterized by a constructivist conception of the relationship between theory and facts that seems to be consistent with Mach’s observations on scientific knowledge. (...) The paper first explores Hesse’s account of postempiricism and her project of a new epistemology. It then considers Ernst Mach’s conception of facts as the middle term of a triad of concepts that includes thoughts and elements as extreme terms. Finally, the paper will offer concluding remarks on Mach’s contribution to the debate on scientific realism and his attempt to redefine the notions of correspondence and objectivity in science. (shrink)

This volume presents new essays on the work and thought of physicist, psychologist, and philosopher Ernst Mach. Moving away from previous estimations of Mach as a pre-logical positivist, the essays reflect his rehabilitation as a thinker of direct relevance to debates in the contemporary philosophies of natural science, psychology, metaphysics, and mind. Topics covered include Mach's work on acoustical psychophysics and physics; his ideas on analogy and the principle of conservation of energy; the correct interpretation of his scheme of 'elements' (...) and its relationship to his 'historical-critical' method; the relationship of his thought to movements such as American pragmatism, realism, and neutral monism, as well as to contemporary figures such as Friedrich Nietzsche; and the reception and influence of his works in Germany and Austria, particularly by the Vienna Circle. (shrink)

This is the introduction to a special issue of HOPOS on the history of the philosophy of thought experiments.

The father of neutral monism, Ernst Mach, argued that the fundamental constituents of the world are neither mental nor physical and that the distinction between the mental and physical ought to be erased. This article offers a reconstruction of Mach’s view. There is a “pure drive for knowledge” (reiner Erkenntnistrieb), and satisfying it, Mach argues, requires abandoning the mental/physical distinction. The reconstruction given will help to articulate and assess the differences between Mach’s position and Russell’s neutral monism, in which the (...) distinction between the mental and physical is preserved even in the unified science of the future. (shrink)

Neutral monism is the view that both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are grounded in a more fundamental form of reality that is intrinsically neither mental nor material. It has often been treated as an odd fringe theory deserving of at most a footnote in the broader philosophical debates. Yet such attitudes do a grave disservice to its sophistications and significance for late nineteenth and early twentieth-century philosophy of mind and psychology. This paper sheds light on this neglected view by situating it (...) within broader historical monist debates about the mind and bringing attention to one of its central internal disputes regarding ‘mental chemistry’. By taking a closer look at how Ernst Mach, William James, and Bertrand Russell address the question of whether and how our mental episodes are composed of more basic elements, it highlights deep differences among their conceptions of the fundamental ‘neutral stuff’ and its relations to ‘mind’ and ‘matter’. (shrink)

Ernst Mach stands as a representative figure of the positivist philosophy of science at the turn of the twentieth century, yet he is by far the most misunderstood scientist-philosopher. The misunderstanding is largely caused by his epistemological rejection of the use of hypothetical entities that are ordinarily posited by scientists. He also argued against the mechanistic worldview which dominated scientific investigations in the nineteenth century. This essay will demonstrate that Mach’s positivism differs from the earlier positivism of August Comte. His (...) anti metaphysical stance is deeply-rooted in his physical phenomenology, guided by the economy of thought in pursuit of the unity of science. In Mach’s view, scientific theories are merely biological tools for organizing experience by means of the fewest possible concepts, and all metaphysical elements are to be eliminated from science as methodologically and epistemologically superfluous. But Mach’s thesis of the unification of science does not share the common concern of the logical positivists to reduce various scientific statements to physical language. While Mach’s philosophy of science clearly exhibits a miscalculation of the strength of scientific conceptual tools, his physical phenomenology serves as a bridge between theory and experiment which has proved to be fruitful. Keywords: The economy of thought, evolution, element, physical phenomenology, the unity of science, instrumentalism, emphirical realism. Abstrak: Ernst Mach tampil sebagai tokoh representatif dari Filsafat Ilmu Pengetahuan positivis pada peralihan menuju abad ke-20, sekaligus sebagai ilmuwan-filsuf yang paling disalahpahami. Kesalahpahaman tersebut sebagian besar disebabkan oleh penolakan epitemologisnya terhadap penggunaan wujud-wujud hipotetis yang kerap diajukan oleh para ilmuwan. Ia juga melawan cara pandang mekanistis yang mendominasi penyelidikan ilmiah pada abad ke-19. Artikel ini memperlihatkan bahwa positivisme Mach berbeda dengan positivisme August Comte yang mendahuluinya. Pandangan anti-metafisis Mach berakar sangat dalam pada fisika fenomenologi yang dipandu oleh ekonomi pikiran untuk mencapai sains terpadu. Dalam pandangan Mach, teori-teori ilmiah semata-mata sarana biologis untuk menata pengalaman dengan memanfaatkan sesedikit mungkin konsep, dan semua elemen metafisika perlu disingkirkan dari sains karena secara metodologis dan epistemologis tidak bermanfaat. Namun, tesis Mach tentang sains terpadu tidak sejalan dengan gagasan para positivis logis yang mereduksi berbagai macam pernyataan ilmiah ke dalam bahasa fisika. Sementara Filsafat Ilmu Pengetahuan Mach jelas-jelas keliru dalam memperhitungkan kekuatan piranti-piranti konseptual sains, fisika fenomenologi yang menjembatani teori dan eksperimen telah terbukti sangat bermanfaat. Kata-kata kunci: Ekonomi pikiran, evolusi, elemen, fisika fenomenologi, sains terpadu, instrumentalisme, realisme empiris. (shrink)

In this study, the existing definitions of thought experiments and the origin of this concept with its first usage in history will be discussed. Then, the epistemology of Ernst Mach, who conducted the first systematic research on thought experiments, will be provided in order to grasp his views on this subject correctly. In this context, the views of James Brown and John Norton, who support different positions, will be briefly described in order to draw the general framework of the epistemological (...) status of thought experiments. Finally, it will be revealed that the biological theory of knowledge and the doctrine of the economy of thought are the sources of Mach’s ‘instinctive knowledge’ argument about scientific thought experiments. (shrink)

This article initially presents Ernst Mach's anti-realist or instrumentalist stance that underpin his opposition to atomism and reveal his idea that science should be based totally on objectively observable facts. Then, the details of Mach's phenomenalist arguments which recognize only sensations as real are revealed. Phenomenalist thought is not compatible with the idea of realism, which evaluates unobservable entities such as atom, molecule and quark as mind-independent things. In this context, Mach considers the atom as a thought symbol or a (...) metaphysical fiction. This results in the idea that the existence of matter or entity is not independent of the perceiving minds, which is considered Mach’s subjective idealism. As a result of these arguments, the article argues that it would not be wrong to associate Mach's thoughts with solipsism, a radical form of subjective idealism. -/- Bu makalede ilk olarak Ernst Mach’ın atomun varlığına ilişkin itirazının temelini oluşturan ve bilimin sadece gözlemlenebilir olgulara dayandırılması gerektiği yönündeki düşüncelerini ortaya koyan anti-realist ya da enstrümantalist görüşlerine yer verilmektedir. Ardından Mach’ın enstrümantalist tavrının alt metninde bulunan ve yalnızca duyumları gerçek olarak kabul eden fenomenalist argümanlarının ayrıntıları serimlenecektir. Fenomenalist düşünce atom, molekül ve kuark gibi gözlemlenemeyen varlıkları zihinden bağımsız şeyler olarak değerlendiren realizm düşüncesi ile uyuşmamaktadır. Bu bağlamda yapılan incelemeler, Mach’ın atomu bir düşünce sembolü ya da metafiziksel bir kurgu olarak değerlendirmesine ve dış dünyadaki varlıkların var olmasını, onların bir zihin tarafından duyumsanması koşuluna bağlaması ile sonuçlanmaktadır. Makalede Mach’ın öznel idealizmi olarak ele alabileceğimiz bu argümanlarının radikal bir sonucu olarak onun düşüncelerini solipsizm ile ilişkilendirmenin yanlış olmayacağı sonucuna varılmaktadır. (shrink)

Mach’s positivism shares with Husserl’s phenomenology the anti-metaphysical requirement to debunk experience from the categories we have projected in it. However, when it comes to determine its content, are raised issues that, even today, we strive to tackle. Whether Mach is blamed for renewing with the empirical myth of atomically impressions, or he is praised for anticipating the Gestaltpsychologie, it seems to us that the essential point was missed. A contrario, we would like to insist on the radical subversion of (...) the Kantian concept of givenness. In the first place, he distances himself from the representational conception of givenness and frees it from a double myth. In the second place, Mach dissociates givenness from transcendental philosophy and liberates it from the problem of objectivity and of constitution. This deconstruction of the hylemorphic schema enables Mach to deliver a new concept of givenness, construed as the irreducible experience of what happens : thus his post-Kantian empiricism turns out to be singular in the history of occidental philosophy. Neither logical givenness nor operative concept, the meaning of which depends on the global context, for Mach givennness can only be restored once categorically neutralized. (shrink)

The paper aims to investigate some aspects of Ernst Mach’s epistemology in the light of the problem of human orientation in relation to the world (Weltorientierung), which is a main topic of Western philosophy since Kant. As will be argued, Mach has been concerned with that problem, insofar as he developed an original pragmatist epistemology. In order to support my argument, I firstly investigate whether Mach defended a nominalist or a realist account of knowledge and compare his view to those (...) elaborated by other pragmatist thinkers, such as W. James, H. Vaihinger and H. Poincaré. Secondly, the question of what does it mean, for Mach, to orient ourselves in science is addressed. Finally, it will be argued that, although Mach tried to keep his epistemology restricted to a mere operational and economical account of science, that question involves the wider plane of practical philosophy. (shrink)

Ernst Mach’s defense of relativist theories of motion in Die Mechanik involves a well-known criticism of Newton’s theory appealing to absolute space, and of Newton’s “bucket” experiment. Sympathetic readers (Norton 1995) and critics (Stein 1967, 1977) agree that there’s a tension in Mach’s view: he allows for some constructed scientific concepts, but not others, and some kinds of reasoning about unobserved phenomena, but not others. Following Banks (2003), I argue that this tension can be interpreted as a constructive one, springing (...) from Mach’s approach to scientific reasoning. Mach’s “economy of science” allows for a principled distinction to be made, between natural and artificial hypothetical reasoning, and Mach defends a division of labor between the sciences in a 1903 paper for The Monist, “Space and Geometry from the Point of View of Physical Inquiry”. That division supports counterfactual reasoning in Mach’s system, something that’s long been denied is possible for him. (shrink)

This article portrays unification of physics as a central tenet of ErnstMach’s thought, and organizes some of the focal issues in philosophy of science around the process of unification of science. Mach finds a natural place in the history. Newton’s Principia marked the beginning of the era of mathematical physics, which developed triumphantly in the eighteenth century, until new phenomena were discovered in the nineteenth century whose explanations went over and above Newtonian physics. Also Positivism emerged in the nineteenth century. (...) This was the setting where Mach entered. The notion that a central function of physics is to give mathematical descriptions of perceptions is all over Mach’s work, but in Mach’s thought mathematics comes together with hypothetical laws of nature and an overall world-view, similarly as in Newtonian physics where mathematics comes together with the laws of motion. Mach’s criticism of Newtonian absolute time and space was in line with positivism, and his suggestions about an overall holistic worldview were to function as an intuitive background for the new physics. Thus, as a physicist and a philosopher of physics, Mach should be seen primarily as a unifier, and his famous anti-metaphysics should be seen as derivative from this unificationist project: he did not intend to banish the metaphysical core that he himself proposed, but only metaphysics that is not needed in unified science. (shrink)

Dans quelle mesure l'outillage conceptuel de Brentano peut rendre compte des processus psychiques dont la découverte est usuellement attribuée à Freud ? Il y a, entre le maître Brentano et l'élève Freud, une opposition fondamentale : le premier rejette l'existence de processus psychiques inconscients, tandis que le second les érige en principe majeur d'explication de la vie psychique. Après le rappel des arguments de Freud en faveur de l'inconscient, deux concepts brentaniens négligés, ceux d'association et de disposition, sont présentés, qui (...) permettent d'expliquer certains phénomènes dont l'étude est traditionnellement réservée à la psychanalyse. (shrink)

This paper argues that whereas Mach understood thought economy as a principle of practical rationality, Husserl rejected it as a principle of theoretical rationality. The distinction is further supported by their correspondingly different readings of the principle of permanence.

Michael Ende’s bestseller/The Neverending Story/is set in a magical world called “Fantastica”. In Fantastica, there are heroes and villains, just as in the world of universities and academies. There is even an entity, or better: a non-entity of shaky existence, das Nichts, the Nothingness – loved by some philosophers like Martin Heidegger. In Fantastica Nothingness is able to create trouble and destruction. The same is true in the land of academic history and philosophy of science – let us call it (...) “HOPOSia”. In HOPOSia, particularly in its Anglophone provinces, Nothingness of knowledge and information has succeeded in building up strong opinions about the topic “Mach and Relativity”, and has created confusion and disinformation. However, you may slightly relax; our story in HOPOSia is less cruel so far and more peaceful than what happens in Fantastica. Sometimes it has even entertaining aspects. There are similarities, though: If there had not been lies and manipulation of believes, our story would have ended years ago. It went on instead and will possibly do so forever. (shrink)

L'articolo si propone di accostarsi alla figura di Ernst Mach seguendo la stessa metodologia storico-critica da lui utilizzata. Essa permette di contestualizzarne la figura e l'opera in un momento significativo della storia della filosofia occidentale, ma anche di ridefinire alcuni concetti fondamentali del suo pensiero. Scopo ulteriore della ricerca è di osservare da una diversa prospettiva la questione relativa al valore filosofico del lavoro epistemologico di Mach, mostrando come esso possa essere affermato senza bisogno di uscire dai confini da lui (...) stesso tracciati. (shrink)

Ernst Mach (1838-1916) è stato una figura di riferimento per la cultura scientifica e filosofica tardo-ottocentesca e dei primi decenni del Novecento. Le sue ricerche in fisica e psicologia, così come il lavoro epistemologico che emerge dalle pagine di opere quali La meccanica nel suo sviluppo storico-critico e Conoscenza ed errore, hanno influito notevolmente su molti autori a lui contemporanei. In questi testi, Mach delinea una concezione antimetafisica del pensiero scientifico e una concezione biologico-evolutiva della conoscenza umana che si ritrovano (...) elaborate in vario modo nella teoria della relatività di A. Einstein, nell’epistemologia evoluzionistica di K. Popper e D. Campbell, nel pragmatismo di W. James e, più in generale, nelle idee che animarono il primo Circolo di Vienna. I saggi raccolti nel presente volume si propongono di commemorarne la figura e l’opera, guardando a Mach come figura di confine tra prospettive di indagine che la storia della filosofia dell’ultimo secolo ha spesso visto contrapposte. (shrink)

The paper addresses the issue of scientific realism in Mach, and his pragmatist approach to epistemology. Firstly, Eric Banks’s interpretation of Mach as a direct realist about particulars will be explored and discussed. Secondly, Sami Pihlström’s pragmatic realism will be considered, and it will be suggested that this view can be more viably attributed to Mach. Finally, in the light of Mach’s 1910 paper on Sensory Elements and Scientific Concepts, it will be argued that Mach’s agnosticism was probably stronger than (...) any moderate form of realism he could have been committed to, and that he was a radical pragmatist in refusing to be concerned with any kind of metaphysical issue. (shrink)

Review of Erik C. Banks, The Realistic Empiricism of Mach, James, and Russell: Neutral Monism Reconceived.

In this paper, I develop a comparison between the philosophies of Husserl and James in relation to their concepts of experience. Whereas various authors have acknowledged the affinity between James’ early psychology and Husserl’s phenomenology, the late development of James’ philosophy is often considered in opposition to Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. This is because James’ radical empiricism achieves a non-dual dimension of experience that precedes the functional division into subject and object, thus contrasting with the phenomenological analysis of the dual structure (...) of intentionality. However, I argue that the later “genetic” development of phenomenology converges with some central aspects of James’ radical empiricism. This is because genetic phenomenology leads us to conceive of the flow of primal impressions as a fundamental dimension of experience that precedes the subject-object duality and is at the base of the process of co-constitution of the subject and the object in reciprocal dependence. At the same time, Husserl conceives of the impressional core of experience as structured by formal conditions that depend on the concrete constitution of an embodied subject. For this reason, I argue that Husserl’s genetic phenomenology can complement James’ radical empiricism, thus leading to the development of the doctrine of pure experience as a form of empirical and not metaphysical realism. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche’s criticism towards the substance-concept “I” plays an important role in his thought, and can be properly understood by making reference to the 19th century debate on the scientific psychology. Friedrich Lange and Ernst Mach gave an important contribution to that debate. Both of them thought about a “psychology without soul”, that is, an investigation that gives up with the old metaphysics of substance in dealing with the mind-body problem. In this paper I shall deal with Lange’s and Mach’s (...) views, in order to shed some light on Nietzsche’s rejection of the I in philosophy. (shrink)

Historical studies convincingly demonstrate that the knowledge process [Erkenntnis] in natural science consists of the gradual adaptation of the thoughts to the facts. This adaptation happens through happy circumstances, which increasingly reveal the more general similarities and subtle differences of the facts. By this, the precision of the representation of the facts by the thoughts grows, so that the latter finally become an image of the former, which for certain intellectual purposes may completely substitute for them. The one who admits (...) this sober view of the meaning of natural science will assign to natural science teaching no other purpose, but to promote the aspired adaptation of thoughts with highest economy of work on shortcuts, by artificially bringing about those favorable circumstances avoiding the unfavorable historical coincidences and delays.One should in teaching first and foremost proceed psychologically; only secondarily and as much logically, as this is enabled through the psychological preparation so that it becomes a need. New concepts, theories, hypotheses, solutions of problems should only be introduced, when the need for this is felt in order to be able to master the topic. For each sentence, which appears during teaching, clarity and explicitness, but in general not indefeasibility from the point of view of the goal of teaching, should be required. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Das Mittelalter Jahrgang: 21 Heft: 2 Seiten: 273-294.