Abstract
Now that we have classified relativism insofar as it can claim to be considered as a philosophical system and have seen it to be a mathematicism, we would at the same time seem to have determined its place as a scientific theory. However, we have yet to discuss its relationship to mechanism, a question that has been much debated since the appearance of Einstein’s theory. This discussion seems all the more useful since it has been suggested that there is a complete opposition between the two conceptions of reality we have juxtaposed in the title of this chapter. Such an opposition would corroborate the belief that relativism is entirely different from anything theoretical science had previously imagined, that it perhaps even constitutes a sort of extravagance, a monstrous and no doubt ephemeral excrescence. Our analysis, however, as the reader has seen, tends rather to reintegrate relativism into the framework of scientific thought, to show that relativism conforms to the canons science has followed at all times and in all places, or at least during the periods when it was dominated by the concerns that seem to us to characterize the modern concept of science.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Cf., for example, Max Abraham, ’Die Neue Mechanik,’ Scientia 15 (1914) 8.
Henri Poincaré, Electricité et Optique (Paris, 1901), p. 3 ff.
Max Planck, Die Einheit des physikalischen Weltbildes (Leipzig, 1909), pp. 36, 37. We shall have occasion to return to this polemic later (§271).
Sir Oliver Lodge, ’On Electrons,’ Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 32 (1902–1903)50 [Meyerson quotes Sur les électrons, trans. Nugues et Péridier (Paris, 1906), p. 14].
A. Berthoud, La constitution des a tomes (Paris, 1922), p.15 A very clear account of how matter is somehow reabsorbed into the electromagnetic ether can be found in Louis Rougier (La matérialisation de l’énergie, Paris, 1919, p. 62 ff.).
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic (London, 1884), p. 369.
Lucretius, De Natura Rerum, Bk. 1, Vol. 305 [On the Nature of the Universe, trans. Ronald Latham ( Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1951 ), p. 36].
Maine de Biran, Science et psychologie, ed. Alexis Bertrand (Paris, 1887), p. 11.
David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888 ), pp. 206–207.
Henri Bergson, Matière et mémoire (Paris, 1903), p. 22 [Matter and Memory, trans. Nancy Margaret Paul and W. Scott Palmer (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1911), p. 26].
Cf. Harald Höffding, Der Totalitätsbegriff (Leipzig, 1917), p. 78.
Cf. Sir Ernest Rutherford, The Electrical Structure of Matter,’ The Times, 13 Sept. 1923, p. 16, col. 2 [Rutherford has just explained that “we know that the hydrogen atom is the lightest of all atoms, and is presumably the simplest in structure, and that the charged hydrogen atom, which we shall see is to be regarded as the hydrogen nucleus, carries a unit positive charge. It is thus natural to suppose that the hydrogen nucleus is the atom of positive electricity, or positive electron, analogous to the negative electron, but differing from it in mass”].
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Meyerson, É. (1985). Relativism and Mechanism. In: The Relativistic Deduction. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 83. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5211-9_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5211-9_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8805-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5211-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive