IMG88

Ernst Mach

rcjccted all atlempts to localizc scnsations in ihc brain, and tricd to rcducc hcat as thc motion of particie* to an idea. For Mach, it was absurd to argue that a mcrc conccpt, such as thc motion of hypothctical pnrticlcs, could l>e thc causc of a fact, such as thc sensation or fccling of hcat.

Mach s advice to physics tcachcrs was to avoid confusing idcas with facts, or to think that thc former could bc thc “causc" of thc lattcr. Tcachcrs should bc wary of reifying such hypothctical entities as atoms or moleeules. Mach dismissed thc common sense view of hcat i_n a typically positivistic way, by associating it with thc Middlc Ages and “prcscicntific” thought. “Such things arc thc natural residue of thc scholastic methods of our anccstors whose understanding with all ₀f its sharpness always started with dogma and endcd again with dogma. These things will disappear as soon as they arc cxamined with greater carc."²⁰

Somc of Mach’s other advice to science tcachcrs includcd thc sug-gestion that logie should bc subordinated to psychology in thc sense that the teachcr should always wait for the right psychological moment bcforc giving a logical cxplanation of a detailed matter. Even the most impcccable logie would be misunderstood if thc audicncc was not sufficicntly attcntivc and knowledgcablc.

Mach belicvcd that vcrbal disagreement and cvcn bitter argument could bc profitable from a learning point of view. "I don’t even eon-sider contradiction tragic. It often illuminatcs likc a flamc in the dark, cvcn the most inward parts of thc understanding.” ²⁷ "I was never per-suaded of my own infallibility [with rcspcct to other than sensations] and have many a polcmical attack to thank for it.” ²⁸ Mach often pointed to Euclids Geometry as precisely how not to present mathematies and physics.

Great inąuircrs, cvcn in reccnt limes, have bccn mislcd into following Euclids cxamplc in thc presentation of thc rcsults of their inquirics, and so into actually conccaling their methods of invcstigation to thc great detriment of science. But science is not a fcat of legał casuistry. Scicntific presentation aims to expound all thc grounds of an idea so that it can at any timc bc thoroughly examincd as to its tenability and power. The learner is not to bc led half-blindfoldcd. Thcrc thercforc arosc in Germany among philosophers and cducationalists a hcalthy rcaction, which pro-cccdcd mainly from Herbart, Schopenhauer, and Trcndclcnburg. The effort was madę to introducc greater perspicuity, morc genetie methods, and Iogically morc lucid dcmonstrations into geometry.²⁰

a>

&o - -

Bcsicks conccntrating on scnsations and a historical approach Mach ko bclicved that univcr$ity tcachcrs should alert their students to relevant philosophical litcraturc.

i led (during doctoral cxaminations in Vicnna, 1895-1898) candidatcs a convcrsalion on generał and cvcn thc most generał qucstions of *" • spccial field. I rccommcndcd to philologists that they study thc writ-• ^C*_{s 0}f philosophers of speech, to historians cultural history and prehiy ^,ng* _anti mathematicians and natural scicntists normally Mili and jcvons.

T often became cvidcnt that thc candidatcs did not know thc philosophical ¹ °,• ners of their own spccial ftclds. They wcrc usually vcry ihankful for ^suggcMiom about futurc study.”

^    •    >1 33

physics and the exact Sciences. ...

M_{; c}h*s paralysis in 1898 foreed him to givc up activc work as a c jeditor for Poske’s journal. He recomniendcd that the Austrian phi-losophcr and cducator, Alois Hdflcr (1853-1922), bc offered thc post.³¹ Hdfler a former student of Hrentano, acccptcd Poskes oflcr and re-menibcrcd Mach’s thoughtfulncss with personal respcct and admira-tion' “(The philosophical difłerenccs between us| had so little dam-_ _cj _our pedagogical and pcrsonal relations, that Mach . . . rccom-ended me as his successor as cocditor of lPoske’s] magazinc, which s- 1 still hołd today."³² Mach’s rccommcndation may wcll have fol-lo\vcd from his desirc that physics students learn morc about philos-_o° _{h an(}j f_rom his realization that Hófler fclt thc same way. Paulsen commented: “A spccial scrvice of Hófler was that hc undetstood how to bring instruction in introductory philosophy in elose rchuon with

v

Apart from numerous reviscd editions with a varicty of titlcs, Mach basically wrote three tcxtbooks: A Compendium of Physics for Med-ical Students (Vienna, 1863); A Textbool{ of Natural Science for Mid■ dle-School Lower Classes (Prague, 1886); and A Textboo{ of Physics for Students (Prague and Vicnna, 1891).³¹ 1 havc already discussed the first book at length. Only thc last two concern us herc.

Mach’s 1886 textbook was coauthored by johann OdstrCil for use in gymnasiums and a second cdition was reworked by K. Habart for realschules. The books did not pleasc the cducation ministry of thc Taaffc governmcnt; ncither version was tjuick to rcccivc a license fot Austrian schools and ncither became widely cmploycd b\ Austriu

>39