{"id":2930,"date":"2012-11-12T10:00:14","date_gmt":"2012-11-11T22:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/?p=2930"},"modified":"2012-11-11T09:33:23","modified_gmt":"2012-11-10T21:33:23","slug":"electricity-a-speculative-newtonian-experimental-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/electricity-a-speculative-newtonian-experimental-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Electricity: A Speculative Newtonian Experimental Science?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kirsten Walsh writes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

In his book, Franklin and Newton<\/a>, I. Bernard Cohen described Franklin\u2019s work on electricity as an example of \u201cSpeculative Newtonian Experimental Science\u201d.\u00a0 The central thesis of our project <\/a>is that the most common and the most important distinction in early modern philosophy is that between Experimental and Speculative Philosophy.\u00a0 So \u2018speculative experimental science\u2019 sounds like a contradiction in terms.\u00a0 Today, I\u2019ll consider whether this label is appropriate.<\/p>\n

Cohen describes electricity as a Newtonian science that only took off after<\/em> Newton\u2019s death.\u00a0 While Newton was fascinated with electrical phenomena, he, like his contemporaries, didn\u2019t really understand it.\u00a0 However, his discussions of electricity, especially the queries of the Opticks,<\/em> provided a useful starting point for Franklin\u2019s electrical research.\u00a0 So we can see why Cohen wants to call Franklin’s electrical research a ‘Newtonian science’.<\/p>\n

Newton’s discussions of electrical phenomena are always found in speculative contexts, but they usually have an experimental tone.\u00a0 For example, Newton first mentioned electrical phenomena in 1675 in his paper on his \u2018hypothesis of light’ \u2013 which is explicitly a speculative paper.\u00a0 He specified six hypotheses<\/a> concerning light and colour.\u00a0 Hypothesis 1 states that \u201cthere is an \u00e6thereall Medium much of the same constitution with air, but far rarer, subtiler & more strongly Elastic\u201d.\u00a0 In the discussion, he suggested that everything<\/em> is made of \u00e6ther.\u00a0 To support this suggestion, he described an experiment involving glass and little pieces of paper.\u00a0 Using friction, he created static electricity in the glass, and caused the paper to dance around.\u00a0 He concluded that: \u201cAt least the electric effluvia seem to instruct us, that there is something of an \u00e6thereall Nature condens\u2019d in bodies.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreover, at various times, Newton speculated that electricity could provide an explanation for gravity.\u00a0 Again, he discussed this idea in explicitly speculative contexts, and drew on experiments performed by Francis Hauksbee<\/a> to support his speculations.\u00a0 For example, in query 31 of the Opticks<\/em> he asked:<\/p>\n

    Have not the small Particles of Bodies certain Powers, Virtues, or Forces, by which they act at a distance, not only upon the Rays of Light for reflecting, refracting, and inflecting them, but also upon one another for producing a great Part of the Ph\u00e6nomena of Nature?<\/ol>\n

    He argued that we have observational and experimental evidence that bodies attract one another by gravity, magnetism and electricity: \u201cand these Instances shew the Tenor and Course of Nature, and make it not improbable but that there may be more attractive Powers than these.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Despite all this speculating, Newton displayed epistemic caution:<\/p>\n

      For we must learn from the Ph\u00e6nomena of Nature what Bodies attract one another, and what are the Laws and Properties of the Attraction, before we enquire the Cause by which the Attraction is perform\u2019d.\u00a0 The Attractions of Gravity, Magnetism, and Electricity, reach to very sensible distances, and so have been observed by vulgar Eyes, and there may be others which reach to so small distances as hitherto escape Observation; and perhaps electrical Attraction may reach to such small distances, even without being excited by Friction.<\/ol>\n

      The final paragraph of the General Scholium of the Principia<\/em> echoes these ideas:<\/p>\n

        A few things could now be added concerning a certain very subtle spirit pervading gross bodies and lying hidden in them; by its force and actions, the particles of bodies attract one another at very small distances and cohere when they become contiguous; and electrical bodies act at greater distances, repelling as well as attracting neighbouring corpuscles\u2026 [However,] there is not a sufficient number of experiments to determine and demonstrate accurately the laws governing the actions of this spirit.<\/ol>\n

        From these passages, it’s easy to see why Cohen calls Newton’s electicity ‘speculative experimental science’: Newton\u2019s discussions of electricity are speculative in tone, and yet they can be considered experimental, since they draw on experimental and observational evidence.\u00a0 However, there is a sense in which this label isn’t appropriate.\u00a0 I have previously<\/a> argued that this kind of speculation has a role within Newton’s experimental philosophy.\u00a0 The epistemic caution displayed by Newton suggests that he is indeed following his methodology and that these discussions of electrical phenomena are taking place within his experimental philosophy.\u00a0 So Newton’s electrical work shouldn’t be taken as an example of ‘speculative philosophy’.\u00a0 Taken in this sense, the label ‘speculative experimental’ is indeed an oxymoron.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Kirsten Walsh writes… In his book, Franklin and Newton, I. Bernard Cohen described Franklin\u2019s work on electricity as an example of \u201cSpeculative Newtonian Experimental Science\u201d.\u00a0 The central thesis of our project is that the most common and the most important […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4582,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113],"tags":[521,226,224,9543],"class_list":["post-2930","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideas","tag-electricity","tag-experimental-philosophy","tag-newton","tag-speculative-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2930","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4582"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2930"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2930\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2930"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2930"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2930"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}