Abstract
Scientists sometimes pretend that what they do is as natural as breathing, and hence they have no philosophies. But Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger, and Einstein all paid attention to theirs, and indeed no scientific discipline in this century has attracted more philosophical comment than quantum physics.172 Should one not therefore make a compendium of these views, the better to shift truth from error?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Professional philosophers prefer, in place of my naive realism, either “critical” or “representational” realism; see the article “Realism” in: The Encylopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed.
Corpuscles: see Whittaker (1951), p. 31–32.
Lily E. Kay in J. Hist. Bio. 18:2, (1985), p. 207–246
Delbrück’s article “A physicist’s renewed look at biology: twenty years later,” Science 168 (1970), pp. 1312–1315.
Bohr’s references to psychology: Nature 121, 1928, p. 580–590
Die Naturwissenshaften 17, 1929, p. 483–486; the first reprinted in Wheeler and Zurek.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1995 Birkhäuser Boston
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wick, D. (1995). Philosophies. In: The Infamous Boundary. Birkhäuser Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5361-7_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5361-7_17
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser Boston
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-5363-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-5361-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive