John Wilkins  wrote:

> Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
> 
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > >>Haven't read Witt's 'On Certainty', but I think its
widely understood
> > >>that the real blow to certainty was the demise of
Newtonain mechanics.
> > >>Science is rarely influenced by developments in
philosophy, I am told.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Then you are told wrong. Locke, Hume, Mill, Whewell, and the
positivists
> > > including Mach, Pearson, and of course people like Russell and Popper
> > > all had an impact on the ways science was done. Einstein in particular
> > > was influenced strongly by various philosophers, at least in
the way he
> > > approached the topic. What caused the demise of certainty was - I
> > > believe - Hume's arguments against pyrrhonian skepticism, well before
> > > Newtonian mechanics hit the edge of uncertainty :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Einstein's favorite was Spinoza, but I doubt it had much to do with his
> > science.
> > 
> > He credited Mach with an influence, but that was only in his parsimony
> > with regard to abandoning the notion of an aether and assumptions
> > about simultaneity.  Remember, most of the
> > thinking that led to relativity was based on thought expiments that
> > can't be conducted, not even in principle.  That's hardly Machian, at
> > least not according to anything I know about him.  There's also
> > Einsteins denunciation of positivism, Russell's variety any way, in
> > what was supposed to be a tribute to Prof. Russel in which he referred
> > to it as "the opposite extreme to that earlier philosophizing in the
> > clouds".  When called on the carpet on some of this, the dialogue
> > went something along the lines of:
> > 
> >     Questioner: What is your opinion of/Machean approaches to science?
> >     Einstein:  I think its utter nonsense.
> >     Questioner: But I thought you employed such notions in the development
> >                 of relativity.
> >     Einstein:  Yes, I know.  But its nonsense all the same.
> 
> Not knowing the context (is it in the Schilpp volume? I have it at home)
> I would guess that Einstein is being gently ironic. Positivism (or which
> Mach was a leading proponent) treated metaphysics as nonsense. Einstein
> might be saying that Mach was being metaphysical here. He was known for
> his sense of humor.
.....
To follow up, now that I am in my library, Philipp G. Frank, in the
Schilpp _Library of Living Philosophers_ volume on Einstein, quote
Eisnstein as saying in 1916

"I can say with certainty that the study of Mach and Hume has been
directly and indirectly a great help in my work." and quotes further
comments in 1933 and 1944 (in the Schilpp volume on Russell). I can find
him discussing Kant, Hume, Mach and various other philosophers, but not
this exchange.

He speaks in his remarks (p673) of "the insinuation that a concept --
for example that of the real -- is something metaphysical (and therefore
to be rejected)." This is the classical positivist view. He goes on,
"... one needs this distinction [between sense-impressions and mere
ideas] in order to be able to overcome solipsism. Solution: we shall
make use of this distinction unconcerned with the reproach that, in
doing so, we are guilty of the metaphysical "original sin"."

-- 
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 6/2/03 3:48:11 PM