1900年前后德国物理学中的事实概念:马赫与爱因斯坦之比较

IF 0.1 3区 哲学 Q4 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Elske de Waal, Sjang L. ten Hagen
{"title":"1900年前后德国物理学中的事实概念:马赫与爱因斯坦之比较","authors":"Elske de Waal,&nbsp;Sjang L. ten Hagen","doi":"10.1007/s00016-020-00256-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The concept of “fact” has a history. Over the past centuries, physicists have appropriated it in various ways. In this article, we compare Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein’s interpretations of the concept. Mach, like most nineteenth-century German physicists, contrasted fact and theory. He understood facts as real and complex combinations of natural events. Theories, in turn, only served to order and communicate facts efficiently. Einstein’s concept of fact was incompatible with Mach’s, since Einstein believed facts could be theoretical too, just as he ascribed mathematical theorizing a leading role in representing reality. For example, he used the concept of fact to refer to a generally valid result of experience. The differences we disclose between Mach and Einstein were symbolic for broader tensions in the German physics discipline. Furthermore, they underline the historically fluid character of the category of the fact, both within physics and beyond.</p>","PeriodicalId":727,"journal":{"name":"Physics in Perspective","volume":"22 2","pages":"55 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-020-00256-y","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Concept of Fact in German Physics around 1900: A Comparison between Mach and Einstein\",\"authors\":\"Elske de Waal,&nbsp;Sjang L. ten Hagen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00016-020-00256-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The concept of “fact” has a history. Over the past centuries, physicists have appropriated it in various ways. In this article, we compare Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein’s interpretations of the concept. Mach, like most nineteenth-century German physicists, contrasted fact and theory. He understood facts as real and complex combinations of natural events. Theories, in turn, only served to order and communicate facts efficiently. Einstein’s concept of fact was incompatible with Mach’s, since Einstein believed facts could be theoretical too, just as he ascribed mathematical theorizing a leading role in representing reality. For example, he used the concept of fact to refer to a generally valid result of experience. The differences we disclose between Mach and Einstein were symbolic for broader tensions in the German physics discipline. Furthermore, they underline the historically fluid character of the category of the fact, both within physics and beyond.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physics in Perspective\",\"volume\":\"22 2\",\"pages\":\"55 - 80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00016-020-00256-y\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physics in Perspective\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-020-00256-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physics in Perspective","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-020-00256-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

“事实”的概念有一段历史。在过去的几个世纪里,物理学家以各种方式挪用了它。在本文中,我们比较恩斯特·马赫和阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦对这个概念的解释。马赫和大多数19世纪的德国物理学家一样,把事实和理论对立起来。他把事实理解为自然事件的真实而复杂的组合。理论,反过来,只服务于秩序和有效地沟通事实。爱因斯坦的事实概念与马赫的不相容,因为爱因斯坦认为事实也可以是理论性的,就像他认为数学理论化在表现现实方面起着主导作用一样。例如,他使用事实的概念来指代经验的普遍有效的结果。我们所揭示的马赫和爱因斯坦之间的差异象征着德国物理学学科中更广泛的紧张关系。此外,它们强调了事实范畴在物理学内外的历史流动特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Concept of Fact in German Physics around 1900: A Comparison between Mach and Einstein

The Concept of Fact in German Physics around 1900: A Comparison between Mach and Einstein

The concept of “fact” has a history. Over the past centuries, physicists have appropriated it in various ways. In this article, we compare Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein’s interpretations of the concept. Mach, like most nineteenth-century German physicists, contrasted fact and theory. He understood facts as real and complex combinations of natural events. Theories, in turn, only served to order and communicate facts efficiently. Einstein’s concept of fact was incompatible with Mach’s, since Einstein believed facts could be theoretical too, just as he ascribed mathematical theorizing a leading role in representing reality. For example, he used the concept of fact to refer to a generally valid result of experience. The differences we disclose between Mach and Einstein were symbolic for broader tensions in the German physics discipline. Furthermore, they underline the historically fluid character of the category of the fact, both within physics and beyond.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physics in Perspective
Physics in Perspective 物理-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Physics in Perspective seeks to bridge the gulf between physicists and non-physicists through historical and philosophical studies that typically display the unpredictable as well as the cross-disciplinary interplay of observation, experiment, and theory that has occurred over extended periods of time in academic, governmental, and industrial settings and in allied disciplines such as astrophysics, chemical physics, and geophysics. The journal also publishes first-person accounts by physicists of significant contributions they have made, biographical articles, book reviews, and guided tours of historical sites in cities throughout the world. It strives to make all articles understandable to a broad spectrum of readers – scientists, teachers, students, and the public at large. Bibliographic Data Phys. Perspect. 1 volume per year, 4 issues per volume approx. 500 pages per volume Format: 15.5 x 23.5cm ISSN 1422-6944 (print) ISSN 1422-6960 (electronic)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信