The Arguments Against Theorizing Mach's Theory Of Scientific Law

Mach believed that observations were above all other methods of discovery and was firmly against theorizing ([3] 86-87). Mach’s philosophy was that “A scientific law was a quantitative relationship between one observable phenomenon and another” ([3] VIII). He thought that since atoms could not observed that they must not exist ([3] 86). Not only were there not observations of atoms, but they were also a theory. Although the atomic theory was gaining support, Mach would not believe in it because it could not actually be proven correct with observations ([3] 168).
Mach began to develop a following for his way of thinking ([3] 87). While some people followed Mach’s philosophy, his philosophy was flawed ([3] 172). The flaw is that if science
Boltzmann tried to replicate his experience in England with the German chemists that supported energeticism in the Lubeck debate ([3] 126). Energeticism was based on the Theory of Energy that stated that energy is what everything was made of ([3] 125). Helm, one of Boltzmann’s opponents at the Lubeck debate, wrote a letter say, “[Boltzmann] touched on things which during my preparation and in my correspondence, I had not anticipated, and which seemed inappropriate, and it was hard for me to put in even a few words of clarification ([3] 127-128).
Boltzmann and Galileo do share a few similarities one of which being their poor state of health. Later in Galileo’s life, he went completely blind which greatly inhibited his ability to make observations which he relied on heavily for scientific discovery ([1] 107). Boltzmann’s health was also worsening throughout his life ([3] 163). His eyesight became so poor he could no longer conduct laboratory work ([3] 163). He was also overweight which led to a plethora of other health problems ([3] 163). As a result of his poor physical health, Boltzmann’s psychological state worsened ([3]