TY - JOUR
AU - Soffer, Reba N.
AB - General alize the present. What is surprising is that Stue­ ity of the atomic theory, Mach and Boltzmann wer, reflecting a lack of historical imagination, held each other in high regard and not only valued seems dismayed by such distortion. His history of their interactions as opportunities to learn from the event is accurate, but it is dull. l\luch of the each other, but actually shared in a friendly fash­ text recounts already-published historical ac­ ion the same platform in public debate. In short, counts of related events. He devotes enormous the biographical material that Blackmore provides amounts of space to mathematical derivations that adds an important dimension to our under­ serve no historical purpose. They may reassure standing of Mach's work and influence. Stuewer that he understands physics; they may Though Blackmore may have fulfilled his stated make the book appealing to physicists; but they do purposes, the book has two serious shortcomings. not belong in a genuine history of physics. Blackmore informs us that the original manuscript In his introduction Stuewer writes of his in­ from which the biography was written was twice tention to focus on conceptual issues rather than as long. In the process of 
TI - H. Stuart Hughes. The Sea Change: The Migration of Social Thought, 1930–1965. New York: Harper and Row. 1975. Pp. x, 283. $10.00
JF - The American Historical Review
DO - 10.1086/ahr/81.3.563-a
DA - 1976-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/h-stuart-hughes-the-sea-change-the-migration-of-social-thought-1930-tP0sLPp0Zd
SP - 563
EP - 564
VL - 81
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -