IMG12

ConUnts

14. Mach vs. Boltzmann, Planck, Stumpf, and Kulpę, 204

15. Politics, Russia, and Vladimir Lenin, 232

16. Mach and Einstein, 247

17. Did Mach Finally Acccpt Einstein’s Theory of Rclativity ?, 260

18. Mach and Buddhism, 286

19. Mach’s Influence on Early Logical Positivism and on Quantum Theory, 300

Appcndix: Did Mach Finally Acccpt the Rcality of Atoms ?, 319 Notes, 325

A Select Bibliography, 361 Indcx, 377

Prejacc

This book was writtcn with scvcral purposes in mind. First, I wantcd to present as much ncw biographical information on Ernst Mach as possiblc. My rcason was to help make him much better known to the educatcd public. Second, I wantcd to clarify the fuli rangę of his con-tributions to science. Mach was not merely a physicist. He also did important work in psychology and physiology and wrote extremcly influcntial books on both the history and philosophy of science. And third, and most important, I havc tried to writc this book in such a way as to emphasizc the central and controversial influence of Mach’s philosophical ideas on the dcvelopmcnt of twcntieth-century physics and philosophy of science. Machs chief greatness lay in his attempt to basc modern physics on a presentationalist epistcmology within the philosophical tradition of Berkeley, Humc, and Kant. This ambition is the primary rcason why Ernst Mach remains so controversial a figurę today. Many peoplc, mysclf includcd, reject the Berkeley, Hunie, and Kant tradition in philosophy and think that it has seriously inter-fered with dic developmcnt of twcntieth-century science. But while I opposc almost all aspeets of Mach’s philosophy, 1 havc ncvertheless tried to be informativc and fair. Mach was a good scientist, an important philosopher, and on the basis of his scientific and philosophical influence alonc should be mentioned in the same company with Max Planck and Albert Einstein. In addition, Mach had a strong and in latcr ycars even a couragcous temperament.

But if Mach is so important why has hc becn so obscure for so long to the educated public? Why has no full-scale biography becn writtcn about him up to now? First, Mach did not want a biography writtcn about him, and second, his central role in the philosophical “power

VII