On Mach on time.

Mach's views on the nature of time have been unduly neglected. They are both more defensible in their own historical context and more relevant to our own contemporary context than has been appreciated. This essay provides an extended and comprehensive discussion of Mach's writings on time offering novel analysis and interpretation. Contra the prevailing current in the secondary literature, Mach's views on time are shown to be largely vindicated in the context of late nineteenth century physics. Then, building upon this more historical project, we conclude with a critical evaluation of the modern Machian view of time due to Barbour within the context of relativistic chronometry as instantiated via pulsar clocks and atomic clocks. Once more, considered analysis serves to support the Machian view. About time we go back to Mach.

Models on the move: Migration and imperialism.

We introduce 'model migration' as a species of cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer whereby the representational function of a model is radically changed to allow application to a new disciplinary context. Controversies and confusions that often derive from this phenomenon will be illustrated in the context of econophysics and phylogeographic linguistics. Migration can be usefully contrasted with the concept of 'imperialism', which has been influentially discussed in the context of geographical economics. In particular, imperialism, unlike migration, relies upon extension of the original model via an expansion of the domain of phenomena it is taken to adequately describe. The success of imperialism thus requires expansion of the justificatory sanctioning of the original idealising assumptions to a new disciplinary context. Contrastingly, successful migration involves the radical representational re-interpretation of the original model, rather than its extension. Migration thus requires 're-sanctioning' of new 'counterpart idealisations' to allow application to an entirely different class of phenomena. Whereas legitimate scientific imperialism should be based on the pursuit of some form of ontological unification, no such requirement is needed to legitimate the practice of model migration. The distinction between migration and imperialism will thus be shown to have significant normative as well as descriptive value.