D O C . 3 2 1 R E V I E W E L S B A C H 3 2 7
they are taken as the foundation of science. When, on the other hand, a physicist
calls space “absolute,” he means “in its properties independent and codeterminate
of the phenomena.” When a philosopher speaks of the ideality of space, he does not
think of the equivalence of the coordinate systems; nor can the latter be concluded
from the former. In what follows, the empiristic theory of space is rejected, follow-
ing Cassirer; this reviewer must comment, however, that not enough light is shed
on the relation between the logical system and experiences. But here, too, the read-
er finds much of merit. In particular, I would like to mention that criticism was
rightly aimed against one statement by the reviewer: that a concept should only be
permissible in physics when it can be established whether or not it applies in con-
crete cases of
observation;[9]
it is objected that, in general, it is not to an individual
concept that possible experiences must correspond but to the system as a whole.
Elsbach’s book offers much neat and honest work of thought, and deserves to be
studied by those interested in the relationship between philosophy and the natural
sciences.[10]