D O C U M E N T 1 4 0 D E C E M B E R 1 9 2 5 2 4 7 stimmter „Körperaxiome“ aufrecht zu erhalten,[19] so würde man doch diesen Weg nicht einschlagen. Aber hiergegen verhält sich eben die axiomatische Betrachtung indifferent.[20] Es scheint mir dabei, dass man daher in ganz strengem Sinne von physikalischen Konsequenzen der Axiomatik eigentlich doch nicht sprechen kann. Die Fragen scheinen mir philosophisch doch wichtig, und ich wäre Ihnen von gan- zem Herzen dankbar, wenn Sie mit einer Zeile mir sagen wollten, ob ich recht habe. Ihnen und den Ihrigen wünsche ich für das Leben und Schaffen im Neuen Jahr das Allerbeste und bleibe in tiefster Dankbarkeit und inniger Verehrung Ihr M. Schlick. ALS. [21 591]. [1]Schlick (1882–1936) was Professor of the Philosophy of Inductive Sciences at the University of Vienna. [2]Schlick had asked Einstein to join the Mach Committee in a letter of 23 November 1924 (Vol. 14, Abs. 531). [3]See Schlick 1926, Ehrenhaft 1926, and Thirring 1926. [4]See Einstein 1926q (Doc. 303) for Einstein’s contribution. [5]Wolfgang Joseph Pauli (1869–1955) was Professor of Biological and Physical Chemistry at the University of Vienna. His son was Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, whose middle name was given in honor of Mach, who was his godfather. [6]Hans Reichenbach (1891–1953) was Privatdozent at the Technische Hochschule in Stuttgart. [7]In June 1925, Reichenbach had applied for an Umhabilitation from Stuttgart to Berlin in order to be appointed to a chair for natural philosophy that was created there. Initially, he had the support of Max Planck and Max von Laue, but after a political pamphlet by Reichenbach (Reichenbach 1919), in which he expressed antimilitarist views, had come to light, Planck wrote to Schlick that the faculty would probably take a hostile stance toward the applicant (see, e.g. Hentschel 1986). He recom- mended that Schlick explore the possibility of an alternative position for Reichenbach in Vienna, so that he could retract his application and avoid a career-hurting official rejection (see Max Planck to Schlick, 13 November 1925, NL-HN, Vienna Circle Archive). [8]Philipp Frank. [9]Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970) was at the time working on his Habilitation at the University of Vienna, where he became Privatdozent in philosophy in 1926 (see Hintikka 1975, p. xv). [10]In early December 1925, Schlick suggested that Carnap send some of his papers to Einstein (see Rudolf Carnap to Moritz Schlick, 2 December 1925, NL-HN, Vienna Circle Archive). Carnap 1925 is in Einstein’s reprint collection. [11]The “Konstitutionstheorie” is the lost two-volume “Urfassung” of Carnap 1928. Carnap sub- mitted the first volume as his Habilitationschrift at the turn of the year 1925/1926 (see Rudolf Carnap to Moritz Schlick, 2 December and 11 December 1925, NL-HN, Vienna Circle Archive). [12]Reichenbach 1925c. [13]With the expression “axiomatic method” Schlick refers to the so-called constructive axiomati- zation presented in Reichenbach 1921 and fully developed in Reichenbach 1924. It sets as axioms empirical assertions subject to experimental verification. [14]Reichenbach explicitly maintains that there is no difference between the Lorentz theory and Einstein’s theory (Reichenbach 1925c, p. 45). [15]Schlick considered Lorentz’s theory and special relativity empirically equivalent (see Schlick 1915, p. 141). He argued that the latter is “philosophically” superior in as much as it forgoes the intro- duction of compensating contractions of moving bodies in the direction of motion and regards the shortening of rods as a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity (see Schlick 1915, 140–141). [16]Reichenbach characterizes as wrong the assertion that the Lorentz contraction is an ad hoc hypothesis, introduced to explain away the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (Reichenbach