|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Response to readings Week 7, for [[STS 3301]]==
| + | My begining posting on the portal wanted to say hi to everyone. |
| | | | |
| − | Whether it's the break of fall break or the content, I can't seem to produce definitive responses yet to the readings, but I have generated five or six questions after reading all. Hopefully Thursday's discussion (and there and then I) will be more resolute.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1) Is Mach mistakenly excluding anything when he states "Physics is experience, arranged in economical order"?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 2) What in theoretical physics, as it concerned Boltzmann, ran counter to a mechanical world view? Just the energetics, or something new in the fin-de-siècle?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 3) Were Maxwell, Thomson, and Boltzmann inconsistent between their expressions to other scientists and those in popularizations? Were they following one path for scientific work, then professing another to the public? [Crosbie, p. 289]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 4) Were Tait and Stewart logically successful in reconciling mechanical science and religion against Tyndall? Consider Maxwell and Thomsons's belief in creation from the void, i.e. a discontinuity. Am I getting the sides right here? [Crosbie, p. 253]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 5) Boltzmann painted a picture of a nearly unified, mechanical world view before 1900. Why then does Seth paint a picture of fin-de-siècle physics as uncrystallized, thus as incapable of a crisis/revolution as a leaderless state?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Was 1900-1905 a time to call in the chips, to settle the non-committal compromises of the physical hypothesizers? Thus, was it never a revolution, but a creation of committees committed to the diverse endeavors of theoretical and experimental physics?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 1900 Was only a crisis for those who resisted the disunity, the impending impossibility of their own restrictive world views.
| |
