STS3301 Paper Week 11 - Revision history

Shawn at 19:29, 13 November 2009

2009-11-13T19:29:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 13 November 2009
Line 37:		Line 37:
	:		:

	==~~references~~==		==References==
	<bibreferences/>		<bibreferences/>

Shawn at 05:09, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T05:09:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 11 November 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Reading Forman, I recall the discussion of statistik in Prussia, the difference between its summative numbers and England's averaging numbers, in our readings on Quetelet and Farr, through Hacking and others. Forman calls in a romantic ideal of the individual, and notices the German theorists forcing it onto statistical quantum mechanics. Maybe instead of seeing it from our view, it might be more historical to see such action as retaining the individual as an indivisible and important part of a summation rather than in the norm.		Reading Forman, I recall the discussion of statistik in Prussia, the difference between its summative numbers and England's averaging numbers, in our readings on Quetelet and Farr, through Hacking and others. Forman calls in a romantic ideal of the individual, and notices the German theorists forcing it onto statistical quantum mechanics. Maybe instead of seeing it from our view, it might be more historical to see such action as retaining the individual as an indivisible and important part of a summation rather than in the norm.

	So, what is there to debate in Forman's thesis that 1920s physicists were pressured culturally to make certain claims about their theories? Forman's evidence for forced re-characterization of quantum physics as anschaulich was the clearest of his three sections, with such central figures as Born and Heisenberg shown to be taking a middle tack and a radical bifurcation, respectively.		So, what is there to debate in Forman's thesis that 1920s physicists were pressured culturally to make certain claims about their theories? Forman's evidence for forced re-characterization of quantum physics as anschaulich was the clearest of his three sections, with such central figures as Born and Heisenberg shown to be taking a middle tack and a radical bifurcation, respectively. Wise seems to take Forman's thesis very far, but using a selection rather than an influence model, showing Jordan selecting Führer-ideas to guide him through all his work, at every scale from acausal atoms to organisms to states.

	Forman's thesis is visible in Seth's account of Sommerfeld; the theorist sees fit to steer the race away from mechanical models. But Sommerfeld's world was a bit different than the younger quantum physicists, his was a more industrial one, and his industry was pedagogical, reproductive. Sommerfeld could escort quantum physics away from models like Bohr's, but only because Sommerfeld had the attractive tools of numerical-puzzle-craft.		Forman's thesis is visible in Seth's account of Sommerfeld; the theorist sees fit to steer the race away from mechanical models. But Sommerfeld's world was a bit different than the younger quantum physicists, his was a more industrial one, and his industry was pedagogical, reproductive. Sommerfeld could escort quantum physics away from models like Bohr's, but only because Sommerfeld had the attractive tools of numerical-puzzle-craft.

Shawn at 05:02, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T05:02:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 11 November 2009
Line 19:		Line 19:

	After reading Hendry, to make Forman's thesis serviceable again it seems necessary to me to see a duality between the smudge of continuous evolution of participation in culture and physics of physicists, with the localized events of certain physicists' actions. In the latter, we don't have the holistic picture offered by the former, despite precise evidence. In the former, we can't untangle the bits of evidence satisfactorily, but we're happier that the whole picture seems more consistent. This is my indeterminacy principle of historiography.		After reading Hendry, to make Forman's thesis serviceable again it seems necessary to me to see a duality between the smudge of continuous evolution of participation in culture and physics of physicists, with the localized events of certain physicists' actions. In the latter, we don't have the holistic picture offered by the former, despite precise evidence. In the former, we can't untangle the bits of evidence satisfactorily, but we're happier that the whole picture seems more consistent. This is my indeterminacy principle of historiography.

			Hendry points out that participation in culture didn't necessarily force the content of physics, but Forman's disclaimer about his thesis being about statements about physics not the content of physics, covers this. Hendry also dismisses Forman's arguments about causality as befuddled by the physicists themselves, (p. 169), but from the little bit of Forman we read this week Forman seems to have covered that by promising only plausibility, not dominance, of his interpretation. Hendry claims that Forman's argument would collapse under any of several inquiries into more German physicists, or comparisons with physicists in other countries or with the general populace. But Hendry himself doesn't provide the evidence from such inquiries, so I don't understand why such a guillotine for Forman yet.

	==Notes on references==		==Notes on references==

Shawn at 04:42, 12 November 2009

2009-11-12T04:42:24Z

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Response==
 ==Notes on references==
@@ Line 8: / Line 25: @@
+:
 ==references==
 <bibreferences/>

Shawn at 23:28, 11 November 2009

2009-11-11T23:28:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 11 November 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Response==		==Response==

	==Notes==		==Notes on references==

			;Seth on Sommerfeld<bibref f="default.bib">Seth:2008</bibref>
			:


			==references==
			<bibreferences/>

Shawn: Launch

2009-11-11T23:25:14Z

Launch

New page

Response to readings, week 11, The Forman Thesis, for [[STS 3301]]

==Response==

==Notes==