- Rothschuh , K.E. 1971 . “ Du Bois-Reymond, Emil Heinrich ” . In Dictionary of scientific biography Vol. 4 , 203 – 204 . New York His criticism of Goethe's work as a scientist two years later in 1882 may not have eased the situation much. Emil should not be confused with his younger brother the mathematician Paul du Bois-Reymond, a confusion which is partly present in the index of this book.
- Streller , Justus , ed. 1955 . Philosophisches Wörterbuch Stuttgart
- Schlick's choice of articles appears to have been influenced by his own study of Einstein's theory of relativity Raum und Zeit in der gegenwärtigen Physik Berlin 1917 Other articles, particularly those bearing directly on Helmholtz's scientific conflicts with Hering, might have been epistemologically more revealing.
- See, for example Turner R. Steven Helmholtz, Hermann von Dictionary of scientific biography New York 1972 6 241 253 E. G. Boring, A history of experimental psychology (New York, 1957), 297–315; and J. W. N. Watkins, ‘Moritz Schlick and the mind-body problem’, British journal for the philosophy of science, 28 (1977), 369–382.
- Turner . 1972 . “ Helmholtz, Hermann von ” . In Dictionary of scientific biography Vol. 6 , 242 – 242 . New York
- See Boring A history of experimental psychology New York 1957 278 278 306–307 and 354. Leipzig science, however, could be proud of most of the work done by Wilhelm Wundt and his assistants when they set up the ‘first formal psychological laboratory in the world’ in that city in 1879.
- Woodruff , A.E. 1976 . “ Weber, Wilhelm Eduard ” . In Dictionary of scientific biography Vol. 14 , 203 – 209 . New York (pp. 207–209).
- See Boring A history of experimental psychology New York 1957 308 308 353–355 and 394–395.
- Kruta , Vladislav . 1972 . “ Hering, Karl Ewald Konstantin ” . In Dictionary of scientific biography Vol. 6 , 299 – 301 . New York (p. 300). See also Hugh Dauson, ‘Eye and vision, human’, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica—Macropaedia, vol. 7 (Chicago, 1974), 91–116. Here is an interesting quotation: ‘The direct proof that the eye does contain three types of cone has been secured, but only relatively recently…. Thus all the evidence points to the correctness of the Young-Helmholtz hypothesis with respect to the three-color basis’ (p. 108). Concerning ‘empirical visual space’ and ‘unconscious inference’: ‘The image of the external world on the retina is essentially flat or two-dimensional, and yet it is possible to appreciate its three-dimensional character with remarkable precision…. In order that a three-dimensional object be correctly represented to the subject on a two-dimensional surface, he must know what the object is; i.e., it must be familiar to him…. The perception of depth in a two-dimensional pattern thus depends greatly on experience …’ (p. 113).
Annals of Science
Volume 35, 1978 - Issue 4