A NOTATIONAL PHYSICS WITH PHYSICISTS IN IT

C. A. Hilgartner

Hilgartner & Associates

254 Kensington Place

Marion OH 43302

Ronald V. Harrington

275 Susquehanna Road

Rochester NY 14618

Martha A. Bartter

Department of English

Ohio State University at Marion

1465 Mt. Vernon Avenue

Marion OH 43302

.PA

A NOTATIONAL PHYSICS WITH PHYSICISTS IN IT

C. A. Hilgartner

R. V. Harrington

M. A. Bartter

ABSTRACT

We hold that modern physical reasoning intrinsically depends on

the relations between two or more observers. Using an alternative

mathematics based on a derived grammar, we examine in detail the

situation of discovering a relativistic discrepancy, and accounting for

it. Our frame of reference systematically takes into account the

observer, and utilizes an explicit model for the apparently 'purposive'

activities of living systems; we use it to examine Walter Kaufmann as

he performs his 1901 study on the deflection of electrons by electric

and magnetic fields and the apparent mass of the electron. Thus we

consider not only the theoretical significance of his contribution, but

also the self-and-social components of his study. In our notation, we

describe a) The spatio-temporally ordered sequence of events; b) The

hierarchically-ordered roles Kaufmann plays in designing, performing

and reporting his experiment; c) The inter-personal and social

components of his career; and d) The consequences to Kaufmann and to

the scientific community. Our notational system, which cannot NOT take

the observer into account, confers two advantages: i) It yields

physical theory which systematically handles the relations of an

observer with himself and with other observers, and ii) It brings our

articulated physical knowledge and our articulated social knowledge

into a single rigorous symbol-system.

.PA

A NOTATIONAL PHYSICS WITH PHYSICISTS IN IT

C. A. Hilgartner

R. V. Harrington

M. A. Bartter

"Think in other categories!"

Coleridge

.HM1

.H1 -#-

.H2 A Notational Physics with Physicists

.RR-----!----!----!----!----!----!----!----!----!----!----!--!----!----R

INTRODUCTION

This paper forms the second installment in a series in which we

set out to scrutinize the theory of relativity to see how effectively

it manages to take the observer into account -- and what difference it

makes how well a theory does this, or even whether it does it at all.

To carry out this inquiry, we make use of a frame of reference which

does systematically takes the observer into account. Thus it provides

a suitable background against which to display the assumptions of older

theories (such as the theory of relativity) and to highlight the

significance of the assumptions that we disclose.

Historically, the earliest exponents of relativity (and quantum

theory) introduced a new distinction into human discourse, which they

expressed in terms of the construct of

.UL off

the observer, who gets either

included (taken into account) or eliminated from consideration.

Einstein and others developed the revolutionary precept and criterion

that prefers a physical theory which does take the observer into

account over any which does not. But by the latter half of his

lifetime, Einstein seemed mainly interested in the details of his

general theory of relativity, and he no longer made such a point of

that precept. Today's practicing physicists do account for the

observer in the ways that those early pioneers taught them to. But

they have reinterpreted that precept so as to tame it -- they take the

construct of the observer as if it had nothing to do with living

humans, observers. Consequently, they conduct their studies as if

divorced from any primary connections with actual humans, or from

effective concern for specifiable human values.

In our own frame of reference, we bracket the construct of taking

the observer into account: We present one array of logically general@

assumptions (centering about the explicit postulate of map-territory

non-identity) that, when held, allow one to account for the observer;

and disclose another, contrasting array of assumptions (centering about

the restricted and restrictive tenet of map-territory identity),

logically less general and usually tacitly held, which eliminate the

observer from consideration.@ These latter assumptions demonstrably

___________________

@ Criterion of logical generality

@ Null-A vs. traditional assumptions and "taking observer into

account"< (WHERE did we first lay out both sets of assumptions?????)

__________________

.PA

form a part of the premises encoded in the traditional grammar common

to the Western Indo-European (WIE) languages, both discursive (e.g.

Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, etc.) and formalized (e.g.

symbolic logic, set theory, analysis, topology, etc.).@ We suggest

that our science grants a privileged position to this WIE grammar. If

so, then even the best theories within WIE science include these

restricted and restrictive assumptions among their premises and so, in

some fundamental sense, on logical levels deeper than those ordinarily

examined, systematically eliminate the observer from consideration.

________________

@CAH, "Some Traditional Assumptions...") ________________

A. FINDINGS OF OUR PREVIOUS STUDY

In Appendix 1, we summarize the findings of our previous study.

Succinctly stated, we find that:

In the period from about 1880 to about 1900 or 1910, workers

generated a body of perhaps two hundred experiments whose results cast

doubt on the tenets of Newtonian physics. We find that these

anomalies or relativistic discrepancies have a common structure, which

intrinsically depends on the relations between two or more observers.

Specifically, before a worker can make the kinds of observations which

logically precede and lead to one of the twentieth-century physical

theories which take the observer into account (such as the theory of

relativity), s/he has to rely on certain observations made by one or

more of her/his colleague(s) with the same kind of assurance with which

s/he relies on certain of her/his own observations. To discover an

anomaly, a worker compares two sets of observations, performed under

slightly different conditions; finds that they DON'T MATCH in some

crucial fashion; and takes this mismatch seriously enough to attempt to

account for the discrepancy -- or at least, to write it up and publish

it. These stages in the discovery of a relativistic discrepancy

comprise specific physical activities -- "doings" or "happenings" --

which observably occur at finite rates, in an ordered fashion.

1. In the theory of relativity, the notion of "taking the

observer into account" occurs mostly as verbal imagery and rhetoric;

whereas in the mathematical development, Einstein replaces this image

with the construct of a coordinate system, and spells out relations

between coordinate systems. To do so treats all observers as

interchangeable ('identical' -- the same in observational powers, in

methods and styles, in background and assumptions, etc.).

Consequently, for most of the anomalies, the theory of relativity

reconciles only those aspects of the observed discrepancy which one can

render by means of a coordinate system or the relations between

coordinate systems -- while ignoring those aspects of the discrepancy

not representable by a coordinate system, e.g. those which depend on

the human anatomy, physiology and the activities of an observer, on the

relations between the two observers, etc.@ Thus the theory of

relativity has two parts: the foreground, the explicit, visible theory;

and a more extensive, tacit background. Furthermore, it treats those

"doings" or "happenings" represented by the foreground AS IF they occur

at finite rates, in an ordered fashion; but as for those "doings" or

"happenings" represented only tacitly, in the background, it treats

them AS IF they take place in 'no time at all', in an non-ordered

fashion.

___________________

@Swanson, Marjorie

___________________

Consequently, as judged by its own criteria, the theory of

relativity appears inconsistent. In our language, where it treats

aspects of an anomaly as if the "happenings" occur at finite rates --

as ordered-- it relies on map-territory non-identity and so takes into

account the observer. Where it treats aspects of an anomaly as if the

"happenings" occur in 'no time at all' -- as non-ordered -- it grants a

privileged position to the WIE grammar and so relies on map-territory

identity, eliminating the observer from consideration.

2. Any theory which eliminates the observer from consideration (by

relying on map-territory identity), even in part, guides its exponents

to create, to defend and to contribute to a mutilated science, one in

which its advocates prostitute the explanatory power of their theory to

local patriotism, economic interest, the power of the state, and the

like, for the sole benefit of some group smaller than the whole human

species. But when used for a narrow goal of that sort, a powerful

theory such as the theory of relativity guides the whole human species

into internecine strife and "war on nature." Furthermore, the

explanatory power of the theory expands these goals beyond previous

human experience, perhaps stretching the former limits of human

comprehension: When pursued with "weapons" which harness cosmic

forces, internecine strife becomes the prospect of species-suicide and

extinction; when conducted with the "tools" provided by the kind of

predictability yielded by the theory of relativity and quantum theory,

"war on nature" turns into the prospect of the annihilation of the

biosphere.

B. THE TASK OF THE PRESENT INSTALLMENT

With these findings as background, the authors now ask and answer

the following question: How can we humans use these insights into the

construct of taking the observer into account -- the topics of self and

the social -- so as to generate a self-consistent physical theory based

on map-territory non-identity?@

___________________

@We suggest that creating such a theory may stand as a crucial step

toward turning ourselves away from environmental devastation and

self-destruction, and toward celebrating and affirming the living,

including ourselves.

___________________

In developing our answer to this question, we consider in detail

one historical example of the kind of experiment which discloses a

relativistic discrepancy. Walter Kaufmann (1871-1947) performed a

series of studies concerning the mass (or rather, charge-to-mass ratio)

of electrons. He reported the most significant of his observations in

a paper published in 1901. His findings did not match with the

predictions of Newtonian physics (nor with the results of some of his

own earlier studies), and so represented what we (along with Thomas

Kuhn) would call an anomaly. We use a rigorous model for the

apparently 'purposive' activities of living systems to account for the

"doings" by which Kaufmann designed, performed and reported this

experiment, In so doing, we focus on aspects of the experimenter's

activities crucial to his experimenting but traditionally left out of

account in the writings of physicists.

Where in the earlier paper in this series, we only mentioned our

alternative frame of reference and our non-standard notation (and

imported a few constructs from it), in the present paper we USE our

alternative framework.

a) Our notation relies on a novel "grammar" (pattern for what

constitutes a well-formed formulation) derived, by a small number of

explicit logical steps, from the non-aristotelian premises proposed by

the late Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950). By relying on mathematical

languages built up on a derived grammar, we gain an increase in logical

rigor.

b) It systematically takes into account the observer, thereby

eliminating that self-contradiction intrinsic to the structure of

relativity (and of quantum theory) which we disclose above (Hilgartner,

Harrington, & Bartter, 1989; Hilgartner & Di Rienzi (submitted for

publication)).

The present frame of reference subsumes the topics of "humans

studying physical "doings" or "happenings"," and of "the theories

humans generate to explain their findings."

Methodologically, we employ a procedure based on a careful

comparison between SAYING and DOING. We check (generate our own

reading of) the verbal or mathematical constructs which Kaufmann

actually used in his papers; and we infer that he MEANT what he SAID.

Likewise, we check what he DID (as reported by his biographers,

etc.). Then we compare (our picture of) what he said and of what he

did; we comment on the match between these two levels; and we account

for the disclosed congruences and/or discrepancies by means of the

non-standard notation which we have built up on our derived grammar.

The trouble with using our notation comes from two facts: that it

remains only partially published, and that, so far as we know, no one

outside our own research group has any familiarity with it at all.

We do not derive the new notation here. In Appendix 2, however,

we do give enough information about the notation so our readers can

make sense of what we say; and also give a glossary of notational

terms.

.PA

I. PRIMARY DATA

To provide an example for our study, we examine the life of Walter

Kaufmann (1871-1947), who in 1901 published a paper, "Die magnetische

und electrische Ablenbarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen und die schienbare

Masse der Elektronen," Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Math.-phys. Kl., 2:143-155 (1901). We

obtain the data from which we argue from the entry on Kaufmann in the

Dictionary of Scientific Biography (American Council of Learned

Societies, New York: Scribner's, 1970), from the essay on Kaufmann in

The World of the Atom, edited with commentaries by Henry A. Boorse &

Lloyd Motz (New York: Basic Books, 1966), and from the translation of

Kaufmann's paper which appears there, under the title of "Magnetic and

electric deflectability of the Becquerel rays and the apparent mass of

the electron."2

We shall consider a brief period in Kaufmann's life, during which

he did experiments on the mass of electrons.

Born in Elberfeld (Wuppertal), Germany, Kaufmann studied at

Munich, where he received his doctorate in 1894. In 1896-98, he began

research on the magnetic deflection of low-velocity cathode rays,

obtaining a first approximation to the ratio of electron charge to

mass.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

During this period a controversy arose over whether electrons,

believed to be the ultimate constituents of matter, could have

"apparent" mass in addition to "real" (material) mass. Apparent

mass would be the "electromagnetic mass" gained from the

interaction of the moving charge with its own field. (Dictionary

of Scientific Biography, p. 263).

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

We take the above comment as expressing Kaufmann's experimental focus

(fragestellung).

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

During the Gottingen years, 1899-1902, Kaufmann conducted

research on the magnetic and electric deflection of radium

emanations -- then known as Becquerel rays. From the Curies he

obtained several radioactive particles of radium chloride and set

about measuring the [charge/mass (epsilon/mu)] ratio. Since

these newly discovered rays had velocities approaching the speed

of light, it was assumed that the maximum possible

electromagnetic charge was imparted to them. On the basis of his

initial epsilon/mu measurements in 1901, Kaufmann asserted that

the apparent mass was appreciably larger than the real mass -- by

an estimated magnitude of at least three to one. (Dictionary of

Scientific Biography, p. 263)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

Thus the results which Kaufmann obtained from his 1901 experiment

did not match with his earlier findings.

The essay in Boorse & Motz (1966) clearly sets the overall

theoretical context for Kaufmann's study.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

With the discovery that cathode rays consist of negatively

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

charged particles (electrons, as they came to be called),

physicists began an intensive study of the properties of these

particles; one of the most interesting and important questions

dealt with their mass. With the equipment that was available

immediately after the electron had been discovered, only the

ratio of its charge to its mass could be measured directly. Only

after Millikan had measured the charge on the electron first with

charged water drops in 1909 and then with his famous oil-drop

experiment in 1910-11 was it possible to obtain a precise value

for the mass of the electron.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

Although the electronic mass could not be measured directly,

some important observational conclusions could be drawn,

particularly since the various applicable theories pointed to

some unusual properties of the mass. The problem that arose in

connection with the mass of the electron is essentially the

following one.

Since an electron has an electrostatic field surrounding it

because of its own charge, we must picture this field as moving

along with the electron. Moreover, if the electrostatic field is

set moving, it should, in principle, be accompanied by a magnetic

field according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. Indeed,

Rowland in 1878 had demonstrated experimentally that a moving

charge is accompanied by a magnetic field whose lines of force

form concentric circles about the line of motion of the charge.

From this we can see at once that setting an electron in motion

requires a greater push than setting an uncharged particle in

motion, if we consider the situation in terms of Newton's laws of

motion and Maxwell's electromagnetic theory.

Let us consider an electron and an uncharged particle of the

same mass at rest, and let us accelerate these particles by

applying the same force to both of them. According to Newton's

second law of motion, the force applied to either of these

particles, divided by the acceleration imparted to this particle

by the force, is the mass of the particle. In the case of the

uncharged particle, this ratio (that is, the way a particle

responds to a force) was referred to as the "true" mass of the

particle.

The situation for the charged particle is much more

complicated because of the electrostatic and the magnetic field.

The same force that imparts a given acceleration to the uncharged

particle cannot impart the same acceleration to the electron

because, to begin with, the entire electrostatic field of the

electron must also be set moving. Moreover, the moving electron

immediately finds itself surrounded by a magnetic field that

(according to the laws of induction) is always so directed as to

oppose the force acting to accelerate the electron. In other

words, the electron behaves as though it were more massive when

it is set moving than when it is at rest. When Kaufmann

undertook his experiments on the variation of the mass of an

electron with velocity, physicists differentiated between what

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

they called the "true" mass and the "apparent" mass of the

electron. The "true" mass referred to the mass of the electron

when it was not in motion and the "apparent" mass to its mass in

virtue of its motion. (Boorse & Motz (1966), pp. 502-3)

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

Since Kaufmann had no high-energy accelerators to obtain

electron speeds sufficiently high to show an appreciable increase

of the mass, he used Becquerel rays, the electrons emitted by

radioactive atoms, now called (beta)-rays. These were much more

energetic than the cathode rays that were available to him. In

the first few paragraphs of his paper, he gives arguments in

support of the belief that Becquerel rays are the same as cathode

rays despite their much higher speeds. Then he outlines his

experiment and describes his apparatus. The theoretical aspects

of the experiment are discussed in terms of the arrangement of

Fig. [34-1] taken from Kaufmann's paper.

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

FIGURE [34-1] ABOUT HERE

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

We shall use this figure for a brief description of his

experiment. A speck of radium bromide was placed at A , just

below a pair of closely spaced and electrically insulated square

metal plates K . A difference of potential of about 7,000 volts

could be applied to the plates to produce a strong electric

field. The whole region represented by Fig. [34-1] could also be

subjected to a uniform magnetic field generated by an

electromagnet, the field direction being perpendicular to and

into the plane of the paper. The vertical line x1x2 determined

by A and a fine circular opening at B , terminates on a

photographic plate lying in the xy plane at C . In the

absence of the electric and magnetic fields (beta)-rays

(electrons) from the radium bromide source could reach the

photographic plate only along x1x2 . Thus C on the

photographic plate was a reference point for the undeflected

rays. When only the magnetic field was applied electrons of the

proper velocity initially directed along x1 were forced along

the circular arc ABQ of radius (rho), by the action of the

field. When both electric and magnetic fields were applied

simultaneously, the path of all the electrons that could get

through the hole B , terminated on the curve CP on the

photographic plate. Thus the point P lying on the yz plane

has coordinates y0 and z0 . From his measurements Kaufmann

deduced values of (epsilon/mu) for electrons of five different

velocities. These values are listed in Table [34-1]. It is

clear that as the velocity of the electrons increased, the value

of (epsilon/mu) decreased, thus showing that since the

electronic charge (epsilon) is constant, the mass of the

electron increased with velocity. If the ratio M+m0.(eta)/M

+m0 is calculated from Kaufmann's data for his given values of

v and plotted against the corresponding values of (beta)=v/c,

the open circles shown in Fig. [34-2]

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

FIGURE [34-2] ABOUT HERE

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

result. This figure appears at the end of the paper. It is

evident that the mass of the electron is tending to very large

values as v approaches the speed of light. For reference, the

full line in this figure is the graph of the Lorentz-Einstein

relation. The dots on the lower part of the curve are the values

of m/m0 found by Bucherer in his experiments eight years later.

(Boorse & Motz (1966), pp. 504-5)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

II. APPARENTLY 'PURPOSIVE'

We systematize these primary data using the resources built into

our notation. For example, our notation presupposes the construct of

directively correlated (DC) (Hilgartner & Randolph, 1969a; Ashby,

1962; Sommerhoff, 1950; Singer, 1946). In other words, we consider the

"doings" of any organism in its environment in general, or Kaufmann's

in his environment in particular, as apparently 'purposive'.

SP <DCk> {<HCTe, HFTe>

{.:k <.:h <f(HCTe)f, g(HCTe)f>

{psi(f(HCTe)f, g(HCTe)f)g} OhOt>

{Saj <HFTe>

{HOci} OhOt}j OhOt}k OhOt} O . (2)

The construct of directively correlated consists of the following

four terminological parts:

a) Coenetic terming (CT), signifying "exigencies (of both

organism and environment) which require behavior" -- e.g., in this

situation, "initial conditions that affect both Kaufmann and his

environment";

b) Focal terming (FT), signifying "criteria for what would

constitute a 'favorable' outcome for Kaufmann";

c) Negotiations (e.g. .:, f(CT), g(FT), (psi)) between Kaufmann

and his environment initiated by the coenetic terming; and

d) Outcome (Oc) , which either does or does not satisfy the

criteria of the focal terming.

We show these parts as related in the following ways:

i. Coenetic and focal terming: we regard these as mutually

necessary, "complementary or polar-opposite."

(nu) <CT> {FT} OpOs (3)

.PA

(This says: Our organism's polar-opposed termings (nu), specified

as: background, CT; figure, FT; polar and synchronous ordering.)

ii. Coenetic terming (CT) and negotiations (psi): we regard these

as ordered spatio-temporally (Ot) and hierarchically (Oh) .

iii. Negotiations and outcome (Oc): we regard the outcome Oc as a

particularizing PZ of the negotiations (psi) (e.g. the transactings

between Kaufmann and his environment), namely, that which we select as

the terminus, "the ending of the story."

PZ <psi> {Oc} O (3a)

iv. Outcome and focal terming: we regard the outcome as an

empirical terminus and the focal terming as the logical standard set up

to judge it by.

To facilitate translating expression (2) into English, we print it

again here, with the various parentheses indexed with left

superscripts:

SP 4<DCk> 4{3<HCTe, HFTe>

3{.:k 2<.:h 1b<f(HCTe)f, g(HCTe)f>

1b{psi(f(HCTe)f, g(HCTe)f)g} OhOt>

2{Saj 1f<HFTe>

1f{HOci} OhOt}j OhOt}k OhOt} 4O . (2a)

Expression (2) says: The specifying of our organism, spelled out

as: 4background, the construct of DC, directively correlated; 4figure,

a compounded expression, specified as: 3background, the coenetic term

CT , along with the focal term, FT , for our organism at time e;

3figure, the compounded expression that at time k, from the

background follows the figure, specified as: 2background, the

compounded expression that at time h, from the background follows the

figure, specified as: 1bbackground, happenings f (consequential to the

CT for our organism at time e ) at time f; 1bfigure, the happenings

psi (consequential to the happenings f along with the happenings g

), at time g ; 2figure, the compounded expression that the figure

satisfies the background, specified as: 1fbackground, the focal terming

for our organism at time e ; 1ffigure, the outcome for our organism at

time i .

We can express Kaufmann's coenetic terming as deficit of

orienting (Df(Or)) . (We can particularize this as his fragestellung,

"What charge/mass ratios do I obtain by deflecting Becquerel rays by

means of magnetic and electric fields?") Here we use the construct of

orienting (Or) to signify that combination of motoric and neural

activities (e.g. attending (At) and interest (In) (Hilgartner &

Randolph, 1969a, pp. 303-8)) by which an organism increases its

sensitivity to and awareness of its immediate environment. Think of a

dog "cocking an ear" at an unexpected, unexplained sound, or of a human

"getting his bearings" so as to avoid falling off the edge of the Grand

Canyon, or down a flight of stairs. We also use the term orienting to

designate longer-term, more elaborate human "doings." For example, the

social institution of science serves as one way for the human species

as a whole to orient more accurately or more comprehensively

(Korzybski, 1921; see also Einstein, 1955, p. 1). Kaufmann, as he

prepares to perform his 1901 experiment, has oriented himself to

Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's field theory (and the most recent

permutations of these), and has made himself aware of the evidence

explained by postulating cathode rays and Becquerel rays (or

electrons), and has made himself competent to study them. In other

words, in the midst of his excellent general orientation, he

experiences a deficit of orienting: he feels curious.

Further, we can express Kaufmann's focal terming as obtaining an

answer to his fragestellung, which we could express in notation as the

'awareness' (Aw) of an aspect of his environment (Y) , or Aw(Y) .

If the outcome of his experiment gave a definite answer -- the

photographic plate showed a line or an arc, or a patterned array of

discrete spots, as the trace produced by the deflected electrons --

that would, in effect, relieve his deficit of orienting. If, however,

the photographic plate showed only a blur, that would not permit

Kaufmann to answer his fragestellung, but instead would suggest that he

had framed his key question wrongly.

III. COMPONENTING

Our viewpoint leads us to component the information concerning

Kaufmann's life into two mutually-necessary themes, which we call

'self' and 'other'.

A. Kaufmann's 'other': fast vs. slow electrons

In dealing with his 'other', which he called electrons (fast vs.

slow), Kaufmann showed a high degree of skill in handling all the

facets needed to experiment successfully.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

... His research was marked by great proficiency in

experimentation, especially in the techniques for obtaining the

high vacuums necessary for cathode ray discharge tubes. His most

notable contributions to this art was the construction of the

first rotary high-vacuum pump; it was very artfully made of

loops of glass tubing through which separate columns of mercury

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

forced trapped volumes of gas out of the vacuum space. Although

the pump was extremely fragile, unwieldy, and temperamental,

Kaufmann used it with great success in his celebrated electron

mass research. (Boorse & Motz (1966), p. 505)

.PA

B. Kaufmann's 'self':

Although few references explicitly discuss the topic of Kaufmann's

(or any other experimenter's) 'self', we consider this topic central to

our investigation (cf. below, sections V, VI). Among other topics, we

shall consider Kaufmann's (a) acts of affiliation, (b) self-esteem, (c)

trustworthiness and ability to trust others, and (d) the sense of

having an audience.

IV. SPATIO-TEMPORALLY ORDERED STORY

In discussing the study in question, let us start with the

Kaufmann who has everything ready to go -- and for the first time

starts the two-day experiment.

CT: Our organism (Kaufmann) has mastered the relevant theory

(theories), framed his hypothesis, designed the experiment, developed

the new tools he needs, assembled the equipment (he has the radium in

place, the orifice in place, the field generators in place, the

photographic plate in place, etc.), and so on.

FT: Our organism intends to USE the equipment, CARRY OUT the

experiment, TEST the hypothesis, and JUDGE the theory (theories).

HO <CP1 <CT0> {Df(Or)0} O>

{CP2 <FT0> {Aw(Y)} O} OpOs (4)

This says: Our organism at moment 0, specified as including:

background, a compounded expression, namely: background, our organism

generating the first component (CP1) of a term at moment 0, specified

as: background, the construct of our organism's coenetic terming (CT)

at moment 0 ; figure, our organism's deficit of orientation (Df(Or)) at

moment 0 ; figure, our organism generating the second component (CP2)

of a term, specified as: background, the construct of focal terming

(FT) at moment 0 ; figure, our organism's awareness of some Y (Aw(Y))

at a subsequent unspecified moment; polar and synchronously ordered.

Expectings Ex at instant t0 derived from past experiencing:

We shall not spell these out in our alternative notation at this point,

because we have not yet developed what Kaufmann brings to bear on this

experiment. As the remainder of our text, we shall develop a

vocabulary and a way of talking/writing which allows us to get specific

about Kaufmann's background.

"Alerted": As he enters his laboratory to begin his experiment,

Kaufmann appears fully alert -- attending to (At) and interested in

(In) his experimental system (Sy) .

.PA

O-1 <At1 In1 , Sy1> {Aw(Sy1)2)} OhOt (5)

This says: Our organism abstracting (theta), specified as:

background, our organism attending (At) and interested (In) at moment 1

along with his experimental system (Sy) at moment 1 ; figure, our

organism's awareness of his-experimental-system-of-moment-1 (Aw(Sy1))

at moment 2 ; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

Our organism motors (M*) over so as to approach (Ap) the

three-way vacuum stopcock (Stk) , and closes (Cls) it.

O-3 <M*(Ap(Stk))3> {Cls(Stk)4} OhOt (6)

This says: Our organism abstracting at moment 3, specified as:

background, our organism motoring so as to approach the stopcock at

moment 3 ; figure, our organism closing the stopcock at moment 4 ;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

Our organism motors over to the vacuum pump off/on switch (Von)

and turns it on (Ton) .

O-5 <M*(Ap(Von))5> {Ton(Von)6} OhOt (7)

This says: Our organism abstracting at moment 5 , specified as:

background, our organism motoring so as to approach the vacuum pump

off/on switch at moment 5 ; figure, our organism turning on the off-on

switch at moment 6 ; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

After a suitable interval, our organism "motors" over to the

off/on switch for the electric/magnetic fields (Mon), and turns it

on.

O-7 <M*(Ap(Mon))7> {Ton(Mon)8} OhOt (8)

This says: Our organism abstracting at moment 7, specified as:

background, our organism motoring so as to approach the off/on switch

for the electric/magnetic fields at moment 7 ; figure, our organism

turning on the switch at moment 8 ; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered.

In a similar fashion, he motors to the photographic plate and

uncovers it. Then, at intervals during the two-day experiment, our

organism reads the meters concerning the performance of the equipment,

and records his readings.

After two days, our organism (a) stops the vacuum pumps, (b) turns

off the electric and magnetic fields, (c) opens the stopcock to release

the vacuum, (d) removes the photographic plate, and (e) develops it.

Since these "doings" closely resemble those already described in

notation, we will not write out further notational sentences to

describe them.

Subsequently, our organism makes his measurements on the

photographic plate, producing a table of numbers (Table 1).

Kaufmann's paper gives the details of his mathematical

computations. Table 1 (Boorse & Motz, 1966) presents the first results

of his measurements. Here z0 signifies the magnetic deflection of

the electrons, y0 signifies the electric deflection, (rho) signifies

the radius of curvature of the deflected trajectories, s1 signifies

the projection of half the path traversed in the electric field, s2

signifies the projection of the path from the fine circular opening to

the photographic plate, v.10-10 signifies the velocity of the

electrons, and (epsilon)/(mu).10-7 signifies the charge-to-mass ratio.

TABLE 1*

_______________________________________________________________________

z0 y0 (rho) s1 s2

v.10-10 e/m.10-7

_____ ______ __________ _____

_______ _______

0.271 0.0621 15.1 0.888 2.02 2.83

0.63

0.348 0.0839 11.7 0.888 2.03 2.72

0.77

0.461 0.11758.9 0.889 2.06 2.59

0.975

0.576 0.15657.1 0.889 2.09 2.48

1.17

0.688 0.198 6.0 0.890 2.13 2.36

1.31

_______________________________________________________________________

* All numbers in absolute units.

(Boorse & Motz, 1966, p. 509)

Our organism translates these "results" into "findings" (Cs) .

O-11 <".:10 <O-3, O-5, O-7>9

{Table 1}10 Oh10Ot10>

{Cs11} Oh11Ot11 (9)

This says: Our organism abstracting at moment 11, specified as:

background, a compounded expression that from the background follows

the figure (.:) at moment 10 , specified as: background, our organism

abstracting (theta) as of moment 3 along with that as of moment 5 along

with that as of moment 7, at moment 9 ; figure, table 1; hierarchically

and spatio-temporally ordered as of moment 10; figure, our organism's

consciousness as of moment 11; hierarchically and spatio-temporally

ordered as of moment 11 .

Our organism repeats the experiment during the interval t12-22 .

Our organism reaches "conclusions": (Gt) .

.PA

O-24 <Cs11, Cs22>

{.: <Gt23>

{"The mass of electrons increases with increasing

velocity. As velocity approaches c , mass

approaches

infinity. This conflicts with Newton's dm/dv = 0

."24}

OhOt} Oh24Ot24 (10)

This says: Our organism abstracting as of moment 24, specified as:

background, our organism's consciousness as of moment 11 along with

that as of moment 22 ; figure, a compounded expression that from the

background follows the figure, specified as: background, our organism's

Gestalt or generalization as of moment 23 ; figure, the English

paragraph, "The mass of electrons increases with increasing velocity.

As velocity approaches c , mass approaches infinity. This conflicts

with Newton's dm/dv = 0 ." as of moment 24; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered

as of moment 24.

Our organism writes his ms.

Our organism drops his ms into the delivery system, so that it

will go to the journal for possible publication.

V. HIERARCHICALLY-ORDERED STORY

Let us continue discussing the study in question.

In addition to and synchronous with the spatio-temporal story, we

discern also a hierarchically-ordered story, that spells out Kaufmann's

expectings Ex involved in his doing his experiment. In effect,

Kaufmann expects of himself that he function on a number of different

levels: instrument-handler, instrument-maker, experiment-designer,

hypothesis-framer, and theory-writer.

1. Instrument-handler

In order to perform his experiment, Kaufmann has to gather the

required parts, assemble them into a functioning experimental

apparatus, and manipulate it so as to do the experiment.

In so doing, he operates in a directively correlated sequence in

which he monitors and interacts with both 'self' and 'other.' As

preconditions, Kaufmann shows high self-esteem (Hilgartner &

Harrington, 1984) and high skill with his chosen tools, which he has

earned through his previous experience.

.PA

1O-0 <1Gt-1> {1Ex0} Oh0Ot0 (11)

This says: The first-ordered abstracting of our organism at

moment 0 , specified as: background, the first-ordered Gestalt derived

from past experiencing (1Gt-1) at moment -1; figure, the expectings

based on the Gestalt (1Ex0) at moment 0; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

"His successful measurements apparently were made possible

by his experimental apparatus, which attained a more complete

vacuum than other experimenters could produce in their vacuum

tubes."

(Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1970, p. 263d)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

These measurements also entail high skill in handling, assembling,

etc., the parts which make up Kaufmann's experimental apparatus.

(Alternatively, if Kaufmann had low self-esteem as an

instrument-handler and KNEW it, he could depend on someone else to

handle the instruments; if he had low self-esteem and DENIED it, he

could do the job himself in a bungling fashion.)

2. Instrument-maker

In order to design and build an instrument that he feels confident

will accomplish a certain task, an instrument-maker has to have had

experiences with instruments that DIDN'T do the job, and with

instruments that DID.

In designing and building a new instrument (such as a high-vacuum

pump made of glass and mercury) to do a new job, Kaufmann operates in a

directively correlated sequence in which he monitors and interacts with

both 'self' and 'other' on a higher logical level than that discussed

in the previous section. As preconditions, Kaufmann shows high

self-esteem as an instrument-maker and high skill with the chosen tools

of instrument-making.

2O-0 <2Gt-1> {2Ex0} Oh0Ot0 (12)

This says: The second-ordered abstracting of our organism at

moment 0, specified as: background, the Gestalt derived from past

experiencing (2Gt-1) at moment 0; figure, the second-ordered expectings

based on the Gestalt (2Ex0); hierarchically and temporally ordered.

Success in designing and building an instrument to do a certain

task increases the instrument-maker's skill on the lower level -- as an

instrument-handler.

(Alternatively, he could belong to the Lumpy School of

Glass-Blowing, and clumsily make his own instuments, or could depend on

someone else to make his instruments for him.)

3. Experiment-designer

In order to design an experiment that uses the given instruments,

Kaufmann has to

a) Intuit how he might arrange to make the physical "happenings"

predicted by the hypothesis/theory detectable by his senses.

b) Intuit how he might relate this sensing of the physical

"happenings" to logically-distinct alternatives, so he can make the

judgment, "Hypothesis disconfirmed/not-disconfirmed."

In so doing, he operates in a directively correlated sequence in

which he monitors and interacts with both 'self' and 'other' on a

higher logical level than that discussed in the previous section. As

preconditions, Kaufmann shows high self-esteem as an

experiment-designer, and high skill with the tools of

experiment-design.

3O-0 3Gt-1 3Ex0 Oh0Ot0 (13)

This says: The third-ordered abstracting of our organism at

moment 0 , specified as: background, the third-ordered Gestalt derived

from past experiencing (1Gt-1) at moment -1; figure, the

third-ordered expectings based on the Gestalt (1Ex0) at moment 0;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

Success in designing an experiment which uses given instruments

increases the experiment-designer's skill on the lower levels.

(Alternatively, Kaufmann could depend on someone else to design

the experiment, could design it poorly, etc.)

4. Hypothesis-framer

In order to frame a hypothesis (derived from theory) which one

could design an experiment to test, Kaufmann has to have

a) A working knowledge of what the available equipment can and

cannot do;

b) A working familiarity with the available theory (or the rival

theories) and some of its (their) implications;

c) Awareness of a topic on which his preferred theory says, "Yes,"

and some rival theory says, "No." (Or on which the whole spate of

current theories don't express an opinion.) "Are Becquerel rays and

cathode rays the same thing, except the Becquerel rays are going

faster?"

In so doing, he operates in a directively correlated sequence in

which he monitors and interacts with both 'self' and 'other' on a

higher logical level than that discussed in the previous section. As

preconditions Kaufmann shows high self-esteem as a hypothesis-framer,

and high skill with the tools of hypothesis-framing.

In effect, he must solve the problem of deriving from theory a

hypothesis which one could TEST with the available equipment.

Scientists credit the person who frames the hypothesis with

authorship of the study.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

It was during his period at Gottingen that [Kaufmann] did

his most important experimental work, in particular the

experiment which yields the dependence of the mass of the

electron on its speed, a classic investigation that after sixty

years is still cited in the textbooks of modern physics. (Boorse

& Motz, 1966, p. 505; italics ours)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

4O-0 4Gt-1 4Ex0 Oh0Ot0 (14)

This says: The fourth-ordered abstracting of our organism at

moment 0 , specified as: background, the fourth-ordered Gestalt derived

from past experiencing (1Gt-1) at moment -1; figure, the

fourth-ordered expectings based on the Gestalt (1Ex0) at moment 0;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

Success in framing a hypothesis (derived from theory) that one

could design an experiment to test increases the hypothesis-framer's

skill as an experiment-designer.

(Alternatively, Kaufmann could depend on someone else to master

the theory and frame the hypothesis, or could frame it imprecisely,

etc.)

5. Master Scientist and Theorist

The theories which humans generate start out in principle

implicit; scientists seek to make theirs explicit, and to subject them

to testing. While functioning only at the logical level of

hypothesis-framer, a scientist can depend on someone else's theory or

theories, which he masters and uses as the basis for the hypotheses he

frames. A master scientist and theorist, however, generates his own.

To develop his theory far enough to make it accessible to testing,

Kaufmann has to

a) Know the previous relevant work in the field;

b) Select a problem to solve (the predicted dependence of the mass

of the electron on its velocity).

c) Solve it, and derive a hypothesis.

d) Test the hypothesis experimentally.

e) From his findings, draw inferences, spell out implications, and

so modify the theory (theories) he started with.

.PA

At the beginning of his experiment, Kaufmann shows high

self-esteem in the domain of theorist, but he has not yet demonstrated

high skill with the tools of theory-writing. Instead, he has depended

on others to provide the articulated theories which guide him in

selecting which "phenomena" to consider "interesting": He has

functioned as a disciple of Thompson, Searle, Lorentz, et al. --

Kaufmann's own theory appears inarticulate (embedded in his experiment,

but not clearly stated as HIS theory.) After he completes his

experiment, Kaufmann then makes his own theory explicit:

"dm/dv --> infinity as v --> c ."

In so doing, he operates in a directively correlated sequence in

which he monitors and interacts with both 'self' and 'other' on a

higher logical level than that discussed in the previous section.

By the time he has performed his experiment, interpreted his

results, and submitted his ms for publication, Kaufmann has

demonstrably become a master scientist/theorist.

5O-0 5Gt-1 5Ex0 Oh0Ot0 (15)

This says: The fifth-ordered abstracting of our organism at

moment 0 , specified as: background, the fifth-ordered Gestalt derived

from past experiencing (1Gt-1) at moment -1; figure, the

fifth-ordered expectings based on the Gestalt (1Ex0) at moment 0;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

Success in theory-writing increases the master

scientist/theorist's skill in framing hypotheses.

(In Section IV above, under the rubric of Expectings, we brought

up the topic of "Expectings Ex at instant t0 derived from past

experiencing," but deferred considering the details. Now, we would go

back and write in 1Ex0, 2Ex0, 3Ex0, and 4Ex0 -- but, for Kaufmann

at the beginning of his experiment, we would NOT write in 5Ex0 .)

VI. INTER-PERSONAL AND SOCIAL STORY

Besides these immediate spatio-temporally and hierarchically

ordered "doings," an adequate discussion of Kaufmann's experiment

requires considering more remote "doings."

In performing his experiment and accounting for his results,

Kaufmann displays consequences of past choices, inter-personal and

social.

.PA

PZ <FT> {As} O (16)

PZ <FT> {So} O (17)

This says: (16) Our organism particularizing a term, specified

as: background, the construct of focal terming (FT); figure, the

construct of forming an associating with

self-and-other-member(s)-of-the-species (As); ordered. (17) Our

organism particularizing a term, specified as: background, the

construct of focal terming (FT); figure, the construct of continuing

the associating (So); ordered.

A. Apprenticeship (cf. Polanyi, 1964, pp. 206-9)

i. Affiliating1 (as a student)

At some (probably early) age, Kaufmann said (we conjecture)

something like "When I grow up, I'm going to be a scientist" -- and

subsequently, he progressively affiliated himself with the company of

scientists. As Polanyi (1964, pp. 216-7) points out, from the current

self-selected group of applicants, the company of scientists selects

its own successors.

PZ <FT> {1As} O (16A)

PZ <FT> {1So} O (17A)

This says: (16A) Our organism particularizing a term, specified

as: background, the construct of focal terming (FT); figure, the

construct of affiliating oneself with a community. (17A) Our organism

particularizing a term, specified as: background, the construct of

focal terming (FT); figure, the construct of self-selecting as a

candidate for membership in a community (accepting apprenticeship).

ii. Fostering/emulating (as a student)

In undertaking apprenticeship, a human credits certain other

humans as having mastered that which he aspires to practice, and he

voluntarily submits to their authority.

In accepting him as an apprentice and undertaking to teach him,

these humans engage in fostering (Fo) . This term subsumes a sequence

of inferences: The fostering organism affirms (-|) that another

human (Pe) (who might imitate (Im) his "doings") does actually

exist, and further affirms that should this person's "doings" or

"happenings" imitate his own, the outcomes of this person's "doings"

will satisfy (Sa) this person's focal termings (fundamental needs or

goals).

SP <Foi> {<Pei, Pc(Pei)i+1>

"{O-|(.:) <Im <Hi> {Pei+j} OhOt>

{Sa <PeFTi> {PeOci+k} OhOt} OhOt}"i+1 OhOt} O . (18)

This says: our organism specifying a term, specified as:

background, the construct of fostering at moment i; figure, a

compounded expression, specified as: background, our organism

recognizing a person at moment i, along with our organism's conscious

projecting with respect to this person-at-moment-i at moment i+1;

figure, our organism affirming that from the background follows the

figure, specified as: background, a compounded expression that the

figure imitates the background, specified as: background, our organism

at moment i ; figure, the person at moment j ; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered; figure, a compounded expression that the

figure satisfies the background, specified as: background, the focal

termings for the person at moment i ; figure, the outcome for the

person at moment i+k ; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered at

moment i+1 ; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered; ordered.

This seems equivalent to saying that one of the focal terms of the

fostering organisms gets satisfied when the relevant focal terms of the

apprentice get satisfied.

SP <HFoi> {<HFTi>

{Sa <PeFTm> {PeOcn} OhOt}i O. (19)

This says: Our organism specifying a term, specified as:

background, our organism fostering at moment i ; figure, the compounded

expression that the figure satisfies the background, specified as:

background, the person's focal terming at some moment m ; figure, the

person's outcome at some subsequent moment n ; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered; ordered.

The apprentice, in submitting to authority, engages in emulating

(Et). This term also subsumes a sequence of inferences: The emulating

organism affirms that there actually exists another human (whose

"doings" he would imitate), and further affirms that should his own

"doings" imitate those of this person, the outcomes of his own "doings"

will satisfy his own focal termings.

SP <Eti> {<Pei, Pc(Pei)i+1>

{-|(.:) <Im <Hi+j> {Pei} OhOt >

{Sa <HFTi> {HOci+1} OhOt} OhOt"i+1 OhOt} O . (20)

This says: Our organism specifying a term, specified as:

background, the term emulating at moment i ; background, the construct

of emulating at moment i ; figure, a compounded expression, specified

as: background, our organism recognizing a person at moment i along

with our organism engaging in conscious projecting with respect to this

person-at-moment-i at moment i+1 ; figure, a compounded expression that

our organism affirms that from the background follows the figure,

specified as: background, a compounded expression that the figure

imitates the background, specified as: background, our organism at

moment i+j ; figure, the person at moment i ; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered; figure, a compounded expression that the

figure satisfies the background, specified as: background, our

organism's focal terming at moment i ; figure, our organism's outcome

at moment i+k; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered at moment i+1 ; ordered.

The fostering organism holds the results (Rsl) obtained

initially by the emulating organism as less important than the skills

(Skl) he may develop while performing the procedures. In other words,

in the Gestalt of the fostering organism, the emulator's skills occupy

the figure, while his results occupy the background.

FoO- <PeRsl> {PeSkl} OhOt (21)

This says: The abstracting of the fostering organism, specified

as: background, the person's results; figure, the person's skills;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

When the apprentice emulates the teacher and finds that the

outcomes of his "doings" satisfy his relevant focal terms, the teacher

finds his own focal terms satisfied. This amounts to saying that the

apprentice fosters the teacher (on the next logical level). In other

words, any fostering/emulating entails mutual fostering,

[HFo(Pe), PeFo(H)]

"[HFo(Pe), PeFo(H)] <Sa <HFTm> {HOcn} OhOti> {PeFT} OhOt

| | | |

<Sa <PeFTm> {PeOcn} OhOt}i> {HFT }(22)

This says: Our organism fostering the person along with the person

fostering our organism, specified as two parallel compounded

expressions; background1, the figure satisfies the background,

specified as: background, our organism's focal termings at some moment

m ; figure, our organism's outcome at some subsequent moment n ;

hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered; background2, the figure

satisfies the background, specified as: background, the person's focal

terming at some moment m ; figure, the person's outcome at some

subsequent moment n ; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered at

moment i ; figure1, the person's focal terming; figure2, our organism's

focal terming; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered.

iii. "Graduating" (a "rite of passage")

Kaufmann, once a novice, learned how to use the relevant tools by

emulating skilled tool-users committed to fostering. The standards or

criteria concerning how to use the tools which he mastered don't

"exist" "OUT THERE," independent of humans, but rather, they became

manifest when someone in some sense or other said to him, with a

particular attitude and in a particular tone which we might call the

fostering voice, "Do it this way, and don't do it that way."

Eventually he made the fostering voice his own, and used it with

himself.

The performances of our novice with his tools elicited judgments

from teachers and peers on his skill. Furthermore, he incorporated the

judgments on his skill and other aspects of the esteem of others into

self-esteem, and came to assess the degree of his skill. In the

process, he also judged the degree of skill of his predecessors,

teachers and peers.

When both Kaufmann and his teachers considered that his degree of

skill surpassed some minimum standard, he graduated from the role of

apprentice. Thereafter he associated with the community of scientists

as a peer.

B. Functioning as a peer

i. Affiliating2 ("continuing the associating")

After his graduation, Kaufmann answered inquiries about his

occupation (we conjecture) with something like, "I am a physicist." As

a member of the peerage, he began taking part in the process of

training and selecting his own successors.

PZ <FT> {2As} O (16B)

PZ <FT> {2So} O (17B)

(For rough translations, cf. (16), (17), (16A), and (17A).

Consider 2As as signifying "accepting a person as a student," and

2So as signifying "engaging in teaching this person."

.PA

ii. Fostering/emulating (as a teacher)

Functioning as a teacher, Kaufmann treated the skills developed by

his students by performing procedures as figure, and the results they

may obtain as background. (cf. (21))

Regarded as a researcher, Kaufmann and his peers treated

Kaufmann's results as figure, and the skills required to produce the

results as background. In effect, he acted on the assumption that "The

group (guild) will take me and my result seriously."

HO- <HSkl> {HRsl} OhOt (23)

This says: Our organism's abstracting, specified as: background,

our organism's skills; figure; our organism's results; hierarchically

and spatio-temorally ordered.

iii. Mastery (a "rite of passage")

Most of what scientists do and publish fills in details of the

dominant paradigms of the time. Occasionally, however, a member of the

community, using available equipment and acceptable methodology applied

with high skill, gets results which do not fit with these paradigms.

At the point when this scientist acknowledges his results as

anomalous, and judges that since the experiment meets his criteria his

results merit his own trust, he becomes a master scientist. In writing

up his results and submitting them for publication, he asserts his

mastery, and invites his community to scrutinize his results from

logical and theoretical viewpoints, to replicate his experiment, and in

general to put his findings to use. We can see how this worked for

Kaufmann: According to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1970,

pp. 263d, 264a,b), Lorentz and Bucherer subsequently discussed the

topic of the mass of electrons; Abraham and Planck and Einstein

specifically discussed Kaufmann's 1901 results, and Einstein in 1907

fitted Kaufmann's findings into the special theory of relativity.

VII. CONSEQUENCES

A. Changes brought about in the guild

A scientist expects the universe (both non-living and

inter-personal) to foster him in his scientific work. In the process

of the dialogue between theory and experiment, he improves his

orientation in his directively correlated efforts toward individual and

species survival.

With respect to the non-living, Kaufmann's 1901 experiment yielded

findings which Newtonian physics could not account for. Contemporary

physicists used it to argue in favor of revising Newtonian dogma.

.PA

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

As early as 1901 Kaufmann reviewed the history of electron

theory in his address "Die Entwicklung des Elektronenbegriffs,"

delivered at the seventy-third Naturforscher Versammlung at

Hamburg. He noted the fruitless efforts in the past to reduce

electrical phenomena to mechanical phenomena and advocated

reversing the process by attempting to reduce mechanics to

electrical principles. Acknowledging the contributions of

Lorentz, J. J. Thompson, and W. Wien in this direction, Kaufmann

reasoned that if atoms consisted of conglomerates of electrons,

then their inertia resulted as a matter of course. (Dictionary

of Scientific Biography (1970), p. 264 b,c)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

As for the inter-personal aspects, physicists do not customarily

describe, or even acknowledge, the effects on the experimenter or on

other physicists produced by performing any particular experiment. But

to write up results and submit them for publication comprises a SOCIAL

act, with SOCIAL consequences. The following expression states the

relation of "continuing the associating between our organism H and a

person Pe ", So(H,Pe), as " H abstracts so as to generate a gestalt

Gt ("publishable findings") from his outcome Oc ("results"); and the

person Pe takes in the (transmitted, e.g. published) gestalt Gt so

as to generate an 'awareness' Aw ."

So(H,Pe) <HO- <HOcg>

{HGth} OhOt>

{PeO- <HGti>

{PeAwj} OhOt} OhOt (24)

This says: Continuing the associating between our organism and a

person, specified as two compounded expressions: background, a

compounded expression that our organism abstracts, specified as:

background, an outcome for our organism at moment g ; figure, our

organism's Gestalt or generalization at moment h ; figure, a compounded

expression that the person abstracts, specified as: background, our

organism's Gestalt at moment i ; figure, our person's awareness at

moment j ; hierarchically and spatio-temporally ordered; hierarchically

and spatio-temporally ordered.

In keeping with custom, Kaufmann focussed on the inanimate and

left un-discussed the possible personal and social effects of

performing and publishing his 1901 experiment.

As it turned out, the social aftermath of this experiment included

the personal growth which Kaufmann underwent in the process of

designing, performing and reporting this experiment (cf. above, V 5),

and the attention subsequently paid to Kaufmann by the theorists

mentioned above. The entry on Kaufmann in the Dictionary of Scientific

Biography (1970) backhandedly acknowledges his originality, as

follows:

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

The significance of Kaufmann's experimental evidence that

electron mass varied with velocity, coupled with his belief that

mass could be expressed as essentially electromagnetic phenomena,

has rarely been recognized. He outlined a major pathway along

which research in twentieth-century physics would be directed.

(Dictionary of Scientific Biography, p. 264a)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

In short, Kaufmann's study entails expectations concerning the

inanimate, which he makes quite explicit. These expectations got

tested and not-disconfirmed, and so yielded an advance in articulated

physical knowledge. The cognate Newtonian tenets did get disconfirmed.

Kaufmann's study also entails expectations concerning self and the

social. However, Kaufmann did not make these explicit at all. Hence

he provided no way to disconfirm these expectations. He may have

erred, but he had no protocol, no way of ESTABLISHING whether he did or

not. Hence his study provided no explicit advance in articulated

SOCIAL knowledge.

B. Eliminating vs. including the observer

As just noted, in his 1901 experiment Kaufmann failed to make

explicit his expectations concerning self and the social. By so doing,

he continued to associate himself with the Newtonians, who, in their

theorizing, SYSTEMATICALLY eliminate the observer (or self) and the

relations between self and other humans from consideration.

1. The structure of "eliminating the observer"

The Newtonians never SAID (prior to 1900-1905) that they eliminate

the observer from consideration (Hilgartner & Harrington, 1984a).

Instead, they never discussed the topic of the observer -- of how a

physicist builds up his picture of the physical happenings which occur

in and around him -- at all.

In accounting for this omission, we attribute to the Newtonians a

special, restricted and restrictive assumption which has the effect of

eliminating the observer from consideration -- namely, a tacit form of

"absolute certainty." Furthermore, we attribute to the quantum

theorists and relativists and Newtonians alike still another hidden

assumption, distinguishable from the one disclosed in Newtonian physics

by the early quantum theorists and relativists, which also has the

effect of eliminating the observer from consideration by failing to

consider the hierarchically-ordered relations of an experimenter with

himself and with other scientists -- another tacit form of "absolute

certainty" (Hilgartner & Harrington, 1984).

Still further, we say: If in his theorizing a human relies on some

special assumption which eliminates from consideration a crucial aspect

of the situation, or certain facets thereof -- e.g. the self-component

or observer -- he unavoidably leaves out of account some crucial aspect

of the environmental component of the situation as well.

.PA

CP <ZF> {SfF OtF} O (25)

and likewise,

CP <O-F> {(sigma)F (rho)F} O (26)

This says: (25) Our organism componenting a term, specified as:

background, left-out-of-account aspect of organism's map (ZF); figure,

left-out-of-account self-component (SfF) along with left-out-of-account

other-component (OtF); ordered.

(26) Our organism componenting a term, specified as: background,

left-out-of-account aspect of organism's abstracting (O-F); figure,

left-out-of-account self-referential abstracting ((sigma)F) along with

left-out-of-account hetero-referential abstracting ((rho)F); ordered.

In other words, like the early quantum theorists and relativists,

we impute to the Newtonians (including Kaufmann) at least one

fundamental theoretical error concerning self-and-environment -- and

to the quantum theorists and relativists themselves, another. On the

topic of such errors, Perls, Hefferline & Goodman (1951) lay out the

crucial issues trenchantly:

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

Fundamental theoretical errors are invariably

characterological, the result of a neurotic failure of

perception, feeling, or action. (This is obvious, for in any

basic issue the evidence is, so to speak, 'everywhere' and will

be noticed unless one will not or cannot notice it.) A

fundamental theoretical error is in an important sense given in

the experience of the observer; he must in good faith make the

erroneous judgment; and a merely 'scientific' refutation by

adducing contrary evidence is pointless, for he does not

experience that evidence with its proper weight -- he does not

see what you see, it slips his mind, it seems irrelevant, he

explains it away, etc. Then the only useful method of argument

is to bring into the picture the total context of the problem,

including the conditions of experiencing it, the social milieu

and the personal 'defenses' of the observer. That is, to subject

the opinion and his holding of it to a Gestalt-analysis. A basic

error is not refuted -- indeed, a strong error, as St. Thomas

said, is better than a weak truth -- it can be altered only by

changing the conditions of raw experience.

Then, our method is as follows: We show that in the

observer's conditions of experience he must hold the opinion, and

then, by the play of awareness on the limiting conditions, we

allow for the emergence of a better judgment (in him and in

ourselves). We are sensible that this is a development of the

argument ad hominem, only much more offensive, for we not only

call our opponent a rascal and therefore in error, but we also

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

charitably assist him to mend his ways! Yet by this unfair

method of argument, we believe, we often do more justice to an

opponent than is common in scientific polemic, for we realize

from the start that a strong error is already a creative act and

must be solving an important problem for the one who holds it.

.RR L-----------------------------------------------------------------R

(Perls, et al., 1951, pp. 243-4)

.RR----!---------------------------------------------------------------R

The opinion rigidly held by Kaufmann centers about the way he

linguistically "cut[s] nature up [and] organize[s] it into concepts"

(to use Whorf's (1956, p. 213) phrase), and the degree of reliability

he attributes to this arbitrary, linguistically-determined pattern.

Kaufmann symbolically cuts up nature into two distinct and disparate

realms, namely, "the objective" vs. "the subjective," which he

maintains in "logic-tight compartments" (Cartier, 1963). As we have

already shown, Kaufmann treats his expectations concerning the

inanimate, e.g. electrons, as hypothetical and tentative, and subjects

them to experimental testing -- the most devastating kind of criticism

yet devised. And his findings violate the predictions of Newtonian

theory -- mass, he finds, increases with velocity. In contrast, by not

making explicit his expectations about self and the social, Kaufmann

treats them as NOT in any way hypothetical or tentative, but rather as

beyond scrutiny or criticism -- as "The way things REALLY ARE."3 Since

he does not subject his expectations in this domain to scrutiny, he

tacitly assumes that they reach "absolute certainty." Or, stated in

logical terms, Kaufmann TREATS his picture or map of self and the

social as identical with the territory referred to -- he attributes

absolute certainty to unscientific views in that arena. Absolute

certainty logically precludes any role for the observer.

In the end, by adhering to a fundamental theoretical error, each

member of the Newtonian guild denies to his unscientific expectations

concerning self and the social the scrutiny he gives to his disciplined

expectations concerning the inanimate -- and in so doing, represents

his most fundamental needs as insatiable and his self as dissociated

(Hilgartner & Randolph, 1969a,b,c,d; Perls, Hefferline & Goodman, 1951;

Whyte, 1949).

SP <OGtd>i

{.: <O -|>i {OPr}j OhOt }

| |

{.: <OIr(O -|>i {OSv}j OhOt }

| |

{.: <OSv}j > {OIr(O -|}k OhOt} (27)

This says: Our organism specifying a term, specified as:

background, our organism's dissociative Gestalt at moment i ; figure,

an expression composed of three compounded expressions taken in

parallel, namely, figure1, our organism's Gestalt that from the

background follows the figure; background, our organism's affirming at

moment i ; figure, our organism's total destruction

(not-preservation-and-growth) at moment j ; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered; figure2, our organism's Gestalt that from

the background follows the figure, specified as: background, our

organism interrupting his affirming at moment i ; figure, our

organism's bare survival at moment j ; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered; figure3, our organism's Gestalt that from

the background follows the figure, specified as: background, our

organism's bare survival at moment j ; figure, our organism

interrupting his affirming at moment k ; spatio-temporally and

hierarchically ordered.

Logically speaking, dissociating the self and eliminating the

observer follow from a single hidden untenable assumption (a tacit form

of "absolute certainty"), and so seem equivalent. Furthermore,

developmentally speaking, when a human generates the dissociative

Gestalt (Gtd), he imparts to his experiencing an affect

.UL on

ive tone which

we call the sense of isolation (ORe-).

.: <Gtd> {ORe} OhOt . (28)

This says: Our organism generating the Gestalt that from the

background follows the figure, specified as: background, the organism's

dissociative Gestalt (Gtd); figure, the organism's sense of isolation

(ORe); ordered.

2. Consequences of eliminating the observer

A human or group that tacitly regards its views as absolutely

certain (and thus eliminates the observer), and that encounters another

human or group whose views do not exactly match its own, manifests

counter-fostering of that human or group by defending the rightness of

its own views. In other words, it perpetuates an ethos of

power-struggle. This in turn has serious consequences, which we

discuss in detail in the next installment of this series.

3. The structure of including the observer systematically

We humans can eliminate the fundamental theoretical errors and the

underlying untenable assumption discussed above by treating our

expectations concerning self and the social as also hypothetical and

tentative, and subjecting them to experimental testing. In so doing,

we distinguish between our pictures of self-and-the-social and what our

pictures represent.

POSTULATE 1:

Non-identity: 1=_/ <oZ> {eHeY} OhOt

(29)

This says: Our organism (first-ordered) non-identifying (=_/),

specified as: background, our organism's (object-leveled) map (OZ);

figure, the (event-leveled) self-component (eH) along with the

other-component (eY) of the environment; hierarchically and

spatio-temporally ordered.

That means that we explicitly regard our pictures in principle

both as incomplete and inaccurate, and as containing some kind of

representation of the human who generates the pictures.

POSTULATE 2:

Non-allness:(rho) <v0> {y0} OhOt

___

(rho) <v0> {y1} OhOt

___

(rho) <v1> {y0} OhOt

___

(rho) <v1> {y1} OhOt (30)

POSTULATE 3:

Self-reflexiveness:(sigma) <u0> {h0} OhOt

_____

(sigma) <u0> {h1} OhOt

_____

(sigma) <u1> {h0} OhOt

_____

(sigma) <u1> {h1} OhOt (31)

A human who operates from these premises does not represent his

self as dissociated; he represents his transacting with his environment

as directively correlated, and as competent to satisfy the fundamental

needs of organism and group. In other words, he shows an attitude

which we call O-|i , affirming.

SP <O-|>i {OPrj} OhOt &nbs