Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T02:33:13.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Newton's Principia on the Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ernan McMullin
Ernan McMullin*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, 336/7 O'Shaughnessy, Notre Dame, IN 46556; email: ERNAN.MCMULLIN.1@ND.EDU.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the seventeenth century progressed, there was a growing realization among those who reflected on the kind of knowledge the new sciences could afford (among them Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, Huygens) that hypothesis would have to be conceded a much more significant place in natural philosophy than the earlier ideal of demonstration allowed. Then came the mechanics of Newton's Principia, which seemed to manage quite well without appealing to hypothesis (though much would depend on how exactly terms like “force” and “attraction” were construed). If the science of motion could dispense with causal hypothesis and the attendant uncertainty, why should this not serve as the goal of natural philosophy generally? The apparent absence of causal hypothesis from the highly successful new science of motion went far towards shaping, in different ways, the account of scientific knowledge given by many of the philosophers of the century following, notable among them Berkeley, Hume, Reid, and Kant. This “Newtonian” interlude in the history of the philosophy of science would today be accounted on the whole a byway. The Principia, despite its enormous achievement in shaping subsequent work in mechanics, was from the beginning too idiosyncratic from an epistemic standpoint to serve as model for the natural sciences generally.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 279 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

This paper is a revised and enlarged version of a keynote address delivered at the Second International Conference on the History of the Philosophy of Science, held at the University of Notre Dame in 1998; also presented in the Pittsburgh Lecture Series in the Philosophy of Science, Fall 1999.

References

Bacon, Francis ([1620] 1994), Novum Organum. Translated by Peter Urbach and John Gibson. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Brackenridge, J. Bruce (1995), The Key to Newton's Dynamics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George ([1721] 1992), De Motu, Douglas Jesseph (ed.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert ([1662] 1965), A Defence of the Doctrine Touching the Spring and Weight of the Air, in Thomas Birch (ed.), Robert Boyle: The Works. 6 volumes. Reprinted Hil-desheim: Olms, I: 158–163.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard (1958), Isaac Newton's Papers and Letters in Natural Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard (1966), “Hypotheses in Newton's Philosophy”, Physis 8: 163–183.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard (1971), Introduction to Newton's “Principia”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674283619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard (1980), The Newtonian Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, James T. (1982), “Kepler's Laws and Universal Gravitation in Newton's Principia”, American Journal of Physics 50: 617–628.10.1119/1.13059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, René ([1637] 1985), Discourse on the Method, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated by John Cottingham et al., 3 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I: 109–151.Google Scholar
Descartes, René ([1644] 1985), Principles of Philosophy, in The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Translated by Cottingham, John et al. 3 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I: 177–291.Google Scholar
Downing, Lisa (1995), “Siris and the Scope of Berkeley's Instrumentalism”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 3: 279–300.10.1080/09608789508570918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Force, James (1987), “Hume's Interest in Newton and Science”, Hume Studies 13: 166–244.Google Scholar
Förster, Eckhart (1987), “Is There a Gap in Kant's Critical System?”, Journal for the History of Philosophy 25: 533–555.10.1353/hph.1987.0079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Michael (1992), Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael (2001), Dynamics of Reason. Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (Stanford).Google Scholar
Hume, David ([1756] 1878), The History of England. 6 volumes. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
Huygens, Christiaan ([1690] 1912), A Treatise on Light. Translated by Sylvanus P. Thompson. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel ([1786] 1985), The Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Translated by James W. Ellington, in Kant's Philosophy of Material Nature. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1993), Opus Postumum, Eckhart Förster (ed.). Translated by Eckart Förster and Michael Rosen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepler, Johannes ([1600] 1984), Apologia pro Tychone contra Ursum. Translated by Nicholas Jardine in The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 134–207.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre (1980), The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus—Kepler—Borelli. Translated by R.E.W. Maddison. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1981), Science and Hypothesis. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-015-7288-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1968), “What Do Physical Models Tell Us?”, in Rootselaar, B. van (ed.), Logic. Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North Holland, 389–396.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1978), Newton on Matter and Activity. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1984), “Two Ideals of Explanation in Natural Science”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 9. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 195–210.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1985a), “The Significance of Newton's Principia for Empiricism”, in Osler, Margaret and Farber, Paul (eds.), Religion, Science and Worldview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33–59.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1985b), “Galilean Idealization”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 16: 247–273.10.1016/0039-3681(85)90003-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1989), “The Explanation of Distant Action”, in Cushing, James T. and McMullin, Ernan (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 272–302.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1990), “Conceptions of Science in the Scientific Revolution”, in Lindberg, David and Westman, Robert (eds.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–92.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1992), The Inference That Makes Science. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1994), “Enlarging the Known World”, in Hilgevoord, J. (ed.), Physics and Our View of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79–113.10.1017/CBO9780511622823.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1996), “Epistemic Virtue and Theory-Appraisal”, in Douven, Igor and Horsten, Leon (eds.), Realism in the Sciences. Leuven (Belgium): University of Leuven Press, 1–34.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (2001), “The Origins of the Field Concept in Physics”, Physics in Pespective, to appear.Google Scholar
Moked, Gabriel (1986), “Two Central Issues in Bishop Berkeley's ‘Corpuscularian Philosophy’ in the Siris”, History of European Ideas 7: 633–641.10.1016/0191-6599(86)90013-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Isaac ([Third edition 1717] 1952), Opticks. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac ([Third edition 1726] 1966), Principia. Translated by Andrew Motte, Florian Cajori (ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Palter, Robert (ed.) (1967), The Annus Mirabilis of Sir Isaac Newton. Special issue of The Texas Quarterly 10 (3).Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas (1967), Philosophical Works. 2 volumes. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Alan (1993), Fits, Passions and Paroxysms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. (2001a), “From the Phenomenon of the Ellipse to an Inverse-Square Force: Why Not?”, in Malament, David (ed.), Reading Natural Philosophy. LaSalle: Open Court, to appear.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. (2001b), “The Methodology of the Principia”, in Cohen, I. Bernard and Smith, George E. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard (1990), “From the Phenomena of Motions to the Forces of Nature: Hypothesis or Deduction?”, in PSA 1990, Vol. 2. E. Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 209–222.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Bruce (1987), Kepler's Physical Astronomy. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, 13. New York: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-1-4613-8737-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Bruce (1994), Kepler's Physical Astronomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turnbull, H.W. et al. (eds.) (1959–1977), The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. 7 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, William (1984), Galileo and His Sources. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400857937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. (1956), “Unpublished Boyle Papers Relating to Scientific Method”, Annals of Science 12: 103–117.10.1080/00033795600200086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. (1971), Force in Newton's Physics. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. (1980), Never at Rest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Catherine (1994), “Berkeley and the Microworld”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 76: 37–64.10.1515/agph.1994.76.1.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Curtis (1968), “Kepler's Derivation of the Elliptical Path”, Isis 59: 5–25.10.1086/350331CrossRefGoogle Scholar