Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:44:28.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Case Study in the Applioation of Mathematics to Physics: Descartes’ Principles Of Philosophy, Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Emily R. Grosholz
Emily R. Grosholz*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of how and why the application of mathematics to physical reality is possible has occupied philosophers for many centuries. In contemporary discussions, Philip Kitcher’s attack on a priorist approaches to the question is particularly interesting, for it suggests that there is no global answer (Kitcher 1983, Chapters 1-4). In this essay, I would like to develop his insight by arguing, first, that the problem of how mathematics relates to physical reality should be addressed by an appeal to the history of mathematics and the sciences in the form of case studies which analyze the peculiar and changing ways in which these domains interact. Generalizations about such interaction should be made carefully, in a kind of local and piecemeal retrospective; I believe that the historical record will show that the grounds of justification and the form of applied mathematics changes dramatically from one historical era to the next.

Type
Part II. History and Philosophy of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 116 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

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

1

This paper was written at the National Humanites Center. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities which provided her fellowship.

References

Descartes, René (1641). Meditationes de Prima Philosophia. Paris: Michael Soly. (As reprinted as “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In The Philosophical Works of Descartes. 2 vols. (ed” and trans.) E.S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Pages 131-199.)Google Scholar
Descartes, René (1644). Prinoipia philosophiae. Amsterdam: Louis Elzevir. (As reprinted as Principles of Philosophy, (ed. and trans.) V.R. Miller and R.P. Miller. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983.)Google Scholar
Descartes, René (1649). “Letter to More, August 1649.” (As printed in Descartes’ Philosophical Letters , (ed. and trans.) Anthony Kenny. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Pages 256-259.)Google Scholar
Euclid, , The Elements. (As reprinted as The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements. 3 vols. (ed. and trans.) Sir Thomas Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1926.)Google Scholar
Gombray, André (1983). “Reply to F.T.C. Moore’s ‘Is the Intuition of Dualism Primary?’” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 146: 273–277.Google Scholar
Grosholz, Emily (1986/7). “Three Cartesian Epistemologies.” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal. Hew School for Social Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Keeling, S.V. (1968). Descartes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. (1983). The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lennon, Thomas. (1974). “The Inherence Pattern and Descartes” Ideas.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 12: 43–52.Google Scholar
Mijuskovic, Ben Lazare (1974). “The Achilles of Rationalist Argument.” International Archives of the History of Ideas Series Minor 13: 27–32.Google Scholar
Moore, F.C.T. (1983). “Is the Intuition of Dualism Primary?” Revue Internationale da Philosophie 146: 265–272.Google Scholar
Smigelskis, David. (1985). “Namings, Showings, and the Analytic Achievements of Appreciation: Appreciating the Integrity of Certain Figures.” Unpublished paper presented at a University of Chicago faculty seminar.Google Scholar