![explanation of cathode ray experiment nyu explanation of cathode ray experiment nyu](http://tlaphysicsportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/6/1/5/8/61582483/published/crt-1.png)
1 Longinus’ admirers, struck by the force of the treatise, are usually willing to release him from the strictures of theoretical discourse and allow him the license of a poet they are likely to appreciate his transgressions of conventional limits without ever calling them into question. ) demarcation-between writers and their subject matter, between text and interpretation-very much in the manner of Longinus overriding the distinction between Homer and his heroes, between sublime language and its author, or between sublime poet and his audience. To say, with Boileau and Pope, that Longinus “is himself the great Sublime he draws,” or to profess to doubt, as Gibbon did, “which is the most sublime, Homer’s Battle of the Gods or Longinus’ apostrophe…upon it,” is knowingly to override certain conventional lines of (. It became customary in the eighteenth century to praise Longinus in ways that mimicked one of his own favorite turns of thought-to identify enthusiastically two elements that would more commonly be thought of as quite distinct. I argue for the originality and continuing interest of such approaches, and I try to dissociate them from any problematic ‘positivism’. However, his conception was certainly more influential in philosophy, and perhaps ultimately more fruitful and suggestive. Boltzmann’s conception of pseudo-problems, though, was far less focused, being applied to a very wide range of problems in philosophy and physics.
![explanation of cathode ray experiment nyu explanation of cathode ray experiment nyu](https://www.almunecarinternationalschool.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ALevelScience1.png)
Hertz’s contribution was much more limited, identifying two specific pseudo-problems concerning physics, and suggesting a way in which they might be treated. I argue that it was Mach who really first developed the idea of a pseudo-problem, that he did so in a relatively focused way on the basis of two kinds of examples. ) suggested quite different treatments for them. Here I show how Ernst Mach, Heinrich Hertz and Ludwig Boltzmann each deployed methods of this general kind, how they identified different pseudo-problems, how they gave different diagnoses of such problems, and how they (.
![explanation of cathode ray experiment nyu explanation of cathode ray experiment nyu](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/jI8iw5yg72M/maxresdefault.jpg)
They were devised, not by academic philosophers, but by three of the greatest of the philosopher-scientists. Identifications, diagnoses, and treatments of pseudo-problems form a family of classic methodologies in later nineteenth century philosophy and at least partly, as I shall argue, in the philosophy of science. I suggest further that the most central difference in this context between Mach and Hertz can justifiably (and, perhaps, more fruitfully) be articulated and reckoned in traditional andcontemporary epistemological terms. ) I exhibit in this article, there were certain crucial philosophical differences between these two thinkers with respect to their general conception of scientific theories and scientific norms guiding the activity. Those philosopher-scientists, such as Mach and Hertz, were particularly anxious to emphasize and laud the privileged status of the empirical dimension ofour scientific knowledge, distinguishing it carefully from the theoretical constructions and hypothetical entities that are ordinarily posited by scientists. In the end of the nineteenth century, there was a remarkable ‘empiricist attitude’ found among certain philosopher-scientists, an attitude which arguably emerged in the main as a reaction to the anti-scientific mood prevalent in the culture that time. I conclude that the positivist interpretation of Hertz’s mechanics significantly overplays its similarities to Mach’s views.Keywords: Ernst Mach Heinrich Hertz Mechanics Positivism Atomism Force Metaphysics. I then go on to detail their differences, looking at Hertz’s attitude to the atomic theory, to the mechanical world-view, to simplicity, to unobservables and metaphysics, and his objections to Newtonian forces. ) class='Hi'>Hertz and Mach had to say about one another, and I specify certain respects in which their views are indeed similar. Max Jammer is prominent among this group, the most recent member of which is Joseph Kockelmans. Here I critically assess positivist interpretations, concluding that they are inadequate.There is a group of commentators who seek to align Hertz with positivism, or with specific positivists such as Ernst Mach, who were enormously influential at the time. The place of Heinrich Hertz’s The principles of mechanics in the history of the philosophy of science is disputed.