IMG79

Ernst Mach

within thc contcxt of cpistcmological phcnomcnalism and Mach’s idcas on thc mcthodology and purpose of scicncc.

In dctail, I Icrtz attcmpted to dcscribc scnsations in tcnns of mechan-ical laws bascd on only thrce fundamcntal notions: spacc, tłTHc, and mass. Hc agrccd with Mach in rcjccting “forcc” as a basie physical concept, but whcrcas Mach tried to retain a phenomenalistie czuwałem, dcrivativc from his definition of "mass,” Hertz wanted to climi-natc thc notion from physics altogcthcr. Hertz also hcld that mcchan-ical laws could be propcrly dcvclopcd into a tight deductivc system only if pcrccivcd mass, motion, and time wcrc supplcmcntcd by as-sumptions about unpcrccived mass and motion. Mach criticized this “mctaphysical” addition. but in fact, evcn Mach normally allowcd for thc cxistcnce of unconscious scnsations.

IV

Ludwig Boltzmann, who wanted to understand morę about philo-sophical attacks on "classical” physics in generał and on his own con-rributions to thc kinctic theory of gases in particular, opened a corre-spondencc with Ostwald in 1890 and with Mach in 1892.¹⁶ He also cncouraged both men to publish articles and books clarifying their criticisms. Boltzmann read all of Mach’s major books and many of his articles as well. He madę a genuinc and rcmarkably succcssful cfTort to understand what Mach was driving at.

During thc iStjos, Boltzmann camc to the conclusion, cven allowing for Machs phenomenalistie cpistcmology and purpose of science, that the most "economical” way to “describe and relate thc physical ap-pcarances” was to use thc atomie theory as an indispcnsablc aid.¹⁷

v

Ernst Mach published Contributions to thc Analysis of Scnsations in 1886, an important book in cpistcmology and psychology, but it rc-ccivcd immediate and hcavy criticism from two lcading psychologist-philosophers, Carl Stumpf anrl Theodor Lipps, mostly bccausc of its psychophysical parallelism and treatment of spacc and time as sensa-tions.^,,, Ycars later Mach sadly rccallcd: “In the great majority of cases it was points of dctail that found acccptancc, in so far as thc reception

was favorablc, whilc thc fundamental vicws which had lcd to thc de-tails werc for thc most part rcjcctcd ” ¹⁰ “1 bclicvcd that I could intcr-cst philosophcrs morc than scicntists in it, but I was profoundly de-ccivcd in this."²⁰

One writer cvcn elaimed that "a philosopher gave such an unfavor-‘ ablc opinion on thc book . . . that Mach had to givc back half of thc not exaetly princcly honorarium just to pacify the publishcr.” ²¹ The story sccms morc than a bit doubtful, but it is a fact that thc next printing of the work took place ovcr ten years latcr and in a forcign languagc. The ncxt German cdition of thc book appeared in 1900 and includcd numerous additional chaptcrs with one spccifically added to mcct previous criticisms ²²

But if Mach was not happy with thc book’s initial reception, nonc-theless, it was during this period that hc first began to tccl that his philosophy was in tunc with the times after all. “Until thc 8o’s of thc last century I had thc fccling that I was alone swimming against thc currcnt, cvcn though this had not bccn thc case for a long time." ²³

W ho, then, werc somc of Mach’s nonphysicist allics? Which German philosophcrs hcld vicws similar to those of Mach?

VI

I have alrcady briefly mentioncd allies such as Popper-Lynkeus and Richard Avcnarius and thc fact that Friedrich Langes “nco-Kantian” movemcnt advocatcd a philosophy of science which had important rcscmblanccs to that of Mach, but it is now necessary to point out that during the i88os thcrc were also two other closcly related move-ments and philosophies in Germany.

Ernst Laas openly advocated positivism in his book Idealisni and Positwism (3 vols., 1884-1886). This movemcnt, howeser, nevcr pros-pered in Germany under its correct title. Machs "Elementism" and “Univcrsal Phenomenology” and Avcnarius’s "Empirio Criticism" probably came elosest to traditional cpistcmological positivism of any other movcmcnts in Germany and Austria, but sińce thc ditferenccs betwcen their views and those of Comtc were still considcrablc the fact that they avoidcd Comtek label, though this action probably mis-led at least a fcw students of philosophy at the time, should on the wholc, not bc regretted. “Positivism” about this time acąuircd a bad

tai

\