Book contents
- Interpreting Mach
- Interpreting Mach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Ernst Mach’s Piano and the Making of a Psychophysical Imaginarium
- 2 Mother’s Milk and More
- 3 Meaningful Work
- 4 Mach on Analogy in Science
- 5 Ernst Mach’s Enlightenment Pragmatism
- 6 On the Philosophical and Scientific Relationship between Ernst Mach and William James
- 7 Ernst Mach and Friedrich Nietzsche
- 8 Abstraction, Pragmatism, and History in Mach’s Economy of Science
- 9 Holding the Hand of History
- 10 Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle
- 11 Narratives Divided
- 12 Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
- 13 The Case for Mach’s Neutral Monism
- Index
- References
4 - Mach on Analogy in Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- Interpreting Mach
- Interpreting Mach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Ernst Mach’s Piano and the Making of a Psychophysical Imaginarium
- 2 Mother’s Milk and More
- 3 Meaningful Work
- 4 Mach on Analogy in Science
- 5 Ernst Mach’s Enlightenment Pragmatism
- 6 On the Philosophical and Scientific Relationship between Ernst Mach and William James
- 7 Ernst Mach and Friedrich Nietzsche
- 8 Abstraction, Pragmatism, and History in Mach’s Economy of Science
- 9 Holding the Hand of History
- 10 Ernst Mach and the Vienna Circle
- 11 Narratives Divided
- 12 Phenomenalism, or Neutral Monism, in Mach’s Analysis of Sensations?
- 13 The Case for Mach’s Neutral Monism
- Index
- References
Summary
I examine Mach’s views on how analogy is used in natural science. Omissions of key parts of the text in translations and reprints of his 1904 paper on the topic have contributed to a lack of understanding of what he said and thus to a lack of appreciation of his views. I distinguish two different kinds of analogies that he discusses: in the common use of the term, an analogy is drawn between two objects and is feature-based. In the powerful use made of it in the historical case studies he refers to in talking about analogy in natural science, an analogy is drawn between two systems of concepts, and so opens up a role for scientific laws and principles to play in analogies.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Interpreting MachCritical Essays, pp. 67 - 83Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Buckingham, Edgar 1914. ‘On Physically Similar Systems: Illustrations of the Use of Dimensional Equations’, Physical Review 4: 345–376.Google Scholar
Herschel, John 1845. Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. Longman, Greens, et al.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1902. ‘Die Aehnlichkeit und die Analogie als Leitmotiv der Forschung’, Annalen der Naturphilosophie 1: 5–14.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1905. Erkenntnis und Irrtum: Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung. J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst 1960. The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development. Trans. McCormack, Thomas J., 6th edn, with Revisions through the 9th German edn. Open Court.Google Scholar
Ravn, Mads 2011. ‘Ethnographic Analogy from the Pacific: Just as Analogical as any other Analogy’, World Archaeology 43: 716–725.Google Scholar
Ravn, Mads 2018. ‘Roads to Complexity: Hawaiians and Vikings Compared’, Danish Journal of Archaeology 7: 119–132.Google Scholar
Salmon, Merrilee 2012. ‘Arguments from Analogy’, in Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. Cengage Learning, pp. 132–142.Google Scholar
Sterrett, S. G. 1998. ‘Sounds Like Light: Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity and Mach’s Work in Acoustics and Aerodynamics’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterrett, S. G. 2017. ‘Physically Similar Systems: A History of the Concept’, in Magnani, L. and Bertolotti, T. (eds.), Springer Handbook of Model-Based Science. Springer, pp. 377–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison 1985. ‘The Reaction against Analogy’, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63–111.Google Scholar