Abstract
I GLADLY join in Dr. Jeffreys's tribute to Mach and Karl Pearson, but I would suggest that these thinkers do not constitute science. I do not think it can be gainsaid that the great majority of the most prominent scientific workers (Lord Kelvin, of course, springs to mind, and I think he is typical) did not regard science as Dr. Jeffreys defines it. Indeed, if the views of isolated individuals are to be accepted as science, I am not sure that we ought not to go back much further than the eighties of last century—at least to Newton, who regarded the absoluteness of motion as having an experimental and not an a priori foundation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
D., H. The Philosophy of Sir James Jeans. Nature 134, 499 (1934). https://doi.org/10.1038/134499c0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/134499c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
