No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Perception and Primary Qualities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Extract
Early modern science, according to a misleading and now widely accepted thesis, introduced a split or schism between a world of colorless, imperceptible particles, on the one hand, and the familiar world of perception, on the other. One of the most important dilemmas of modern philosophy, of course, seems to follow directly from this alleged rupture: For how are the two seemingly incongruous worlds to be “reconciled”? This way of formulating the problem, however, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of early modern science, on an interpretation that underestimates the very real difficulties that scientists faced in putting forward hypotheses about unseen minute bodies. If we start to pay attention to the way in which knowledge claims about the properties of atoms or corpuscles were advanced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in fact, it becomes increasingly obvious that such fundamental properties were first attributed to minute bodies on grounds of strict analogy, that is, on the grounds that all perceptible bodies exhibited precisely the properties of size, shape, motion, and so forth.
- Type
- Part I. History of Philosophy of Science
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1978 by the Philosophy of Science Association
Footnotes
1
I would like to thank Lindley Darden, Charles Larmore, and Dudley Shapere for their suggestions and criticisms.
References
Ayers, M.R. “The Ideas of Power and Substance in Locke's Philosophy.” The Philosophical Quarterly 25(1975): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkeley, George, An Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. In Works on Vision. Edited by CM. Turbayne. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963. Pages 7–102. (Originally published in 1709.)Google Scholar
Blake, R.M. “The Role of Experience in Descartes’ Theory of Method.” In Theories of Scientific Method. Edited by Blake, R.M., Ducasse, C.J., and Madden, E. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960. Pages 75–103.Google Scholar
Buchdahl, Gerd. Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Burtt, E.A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1954.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Descartes: Selections. Edited by Eaton, R. New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1927.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry and Meteorology. Edited by Olscamp, P. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965. (Originally published as Discours de la Méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences; plus la Dioptrique, les Météores et la Géométric, qui sont des Essais de cette Méthode, 1637. Reprinted in [10], Volume VI.)Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. (Originally published as Meditationes de prima Philosophia, in qua Dei existentia et animae immortalitas demonstrantur, 1641. Reprinted in [10], Volume VII. English selections printed in [7]. Pages 84–266.)Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Oeuvres. Edited by Adam, C.and Tannery, P. New Edition. Paris: J. Vrin, 1964-1974.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Philosophical Letters. Edited by Kenny, A. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. The Principles of Philosophy. (Originally published as Principia Philosophiae, 1644. Reprinted in [10], Volume VIII, Part 1. English selections in [7]. Pages 267–311.)Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Treatise on Man. (Originally published as Traité de l'homme, 1664. Reprinted in [10], Volume XI. Pages 119-202. English selections printed in [7]. Pages 350-354.)Google Scholar
Descartes, René. The World. (Originally published as Le Monde, traité de la lumière, 1664. Reprinted in [10], Volume XI. Pages 1-118. English selections printed in [7]. Pages 312-349.)Google Scholar
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L.A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951. (Books I and II originally published 1739 and Book III 1740. Reprint of 1888 edition.)Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. The Crisis of European Science. Translated by David Carr. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1970. (Originally published as Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1954.)Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” In Scientific Explanation, Space and Time. (Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Volume III). Edited by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, Grover. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962. Pages 28–97.Google Scholar
Larmore, Charles. “Scientific Theory and Experience.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1978.Google Scholar
Laudan, Laurens. “The Clock Metaphor and Probabilism.” Annals of Science 22(1966): 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Laurens. “The Nature and Sources of Locke's Views on Hypotheses.” In Locke on Human Understanding. Edited by Tipton, I.C.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Pages 149–162.Google Scholar
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dutton, 1961. (Originally published 1689).Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, M. Philosophy, Science and Sense Perception. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Maull, Nancy, “Cartesian Optics and the Geometrization of Nature.” The Review of Metaphysics. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book III, 1686. (As reprinted in Newton's Philosophy of Nature. Edited by Thayer, H.S.. New York: Hafner, 1953. Pages 3–4.)Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid. Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley. “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar