{"id":3212,"date":"2013-06-10T16:00:27","date_gmt":"2013-06-10T04:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/?p=3212"},"modified":"2013-06-09T13:52:39","modified_gmt":"2013-06-09T01:52:39","slug":"borrowed-terms-and-innovative-concepts-in-newtons-natural-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/borrowed-terms-and-innovative-concepts-in-newtons-natural-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"Borrowed Terms and Innovative Concepts in Newton\u2019s Natural Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

In my last two posts, I have discussed my alterations to the 20 theses<\/a> of our project.\u00a0 In this post, I\u2019ll continue to discuss thesis 8.<\/p>\n

In 2011<\/a>, I claimed that:<\/p>\n

    8.\u00a0 The development of Newton\u2019s method from 1672 to 1687 appears to display a shift in emphasis from experiment to mathematics.<\/ol>\n

    But at the start of this year, I replaced this thesis with a new thesis 8:<\/p>\n

      8.\u00a0 In his early work, Newton\u2019s use of the terms \u2018hypothesis\u2019 and \u2018query\u2019 are Baconian.\u00a0 However, as Newton\u2019s distinctive methodology develops, these terms take on different meanings.<\/ol>\n

      In my last post<\/a>, I told you that I decided to remove my original thesis 8 because the methodological differences between Newton\u2019s early papers and Principia<\/em> aren\u2019t as great as I initially thought.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t to say that I now think that the methodology of the 1672 paper is precisely the same<\/em> as the methodology displayed in Principia<\/em>.\u00a0 Rather, I don\u2019t think my original thesis 8 captures what is important about these differences.<\/p>\n

      In today\u2019s post, I\u2019ll tell you about my new thesis 8.<\/p>\n

      On this blog, we have argued<\/a> that the early members of the Royal Society adopted the new experimental philosophy in a Baconian form.\u00a0 Newton initially encountered the experimental philosophy in the early- to mid-1660s through his reading of Boyle, Hooke and the Philosophical Transactions<\/em>.\u00a0 While he never adopted the Baconian method of natural history, other features of his early methodology resemble the Baconian approach.\u00a0 For example, in Newton\u2019s 1672 paper and the debate that followed, his use of experiment and queries<\/a>, and his anti-hypothetical stance<\/a>, were recognised and accepted by the Baconian experimental philosophers.\u00a0 Moreover, his 1675 paper, in which he explored his hypothesis of the nature of light<\/a>, was recognised by his contemporaries as an acceptable use of a hypothesis.<\/p>\n

      In Newton\u2019s later work, however, hypotheses and queries look quite different.<\/p>\n

      Firstly, consider Newton\u2019s Opticks<\/em>.\u00a0 When the Opticks<\/em> was published in 1704, it contained no hypotheses, and the introduction explicitly stated that:<\/p>\n

        “My Design in this Book is not to explain the Properties of Light by Hypotheses, but to propose and prove them by Reason and Experiments.”<\/ol>\n

        Book III ended with a series of queries, which provided directions for further research, in the style of Baconian queries.\u00a0 E.g.:<\/p>\n

          “Query 2. Do not the Rays which differ in Refrangibility differ also in Flexibility…?”<\/ol>\n

          However, in the 1706 and 1718 editions, Newton introduced new queries, which explore the nature of light.\u00a0 E.g.:<\/p>\n

            “Qu. 29. Are not the Rays of Light very small Bodies emitted from shining Substances?”<\/ol>\n

            Like the earlier queries, these ones set out a new research program.\u00a0 But they are much more speculative than was acceptable according to the Baconian method.<\/p>\n

            Now consider Newton\u2019s Principia<\/em>.\u00a0 There are hypotheses in every edition of Principia<\/em>, but they look nothing like Newton\u2019s 1675 hypothesis.\u00a0 In particular, they do not explore the nature of things.\u00a0 For example:<\/p>\n

              “Hypothesis 1. The centre of the system of the world is at rest.”<\/ol>\n

              I have argued<\/a> that the hypotheses in Principia<\/em> provide a specific supportive role to theories.\u00a0 These propositions are temporarily assumed in order to draw out the observational consequences of Newton\u2019s theory of gravitation.\u00a0 They are simplifying assumptions; not assumptions about the nature of gravity.<\/p>\n

              Previously<\/a>, I have argued that Newton\u2019s methodology should be seen as a three-way epistemic distinction between theories, hypotheses and queries.\u00a0 I call this an \u2018epistemic triad\u2019.\u00a0 I claim that Newton took these, already familiar, terms and massaged<\/em> them to fit his own three-way epistemic distinction.\u00a0 It is important to recognise, therefore, that the triad is a three-way epistemic division, rather than the juxtaposition of three terms of reference.\u00a0 The terms \u2018theory\u2019, \u2018hypothesis\u2019 and \u2018query\u2019 are simply labels for these epistemic categories.<\/p>\n

              In fact, this is a feature of many of Newton\u2019s innovative concepts.\u00a0 He borrowed familiar terms and massaged them to fit his own needs.\u00a0 I have shown that he did this with his key methodological terms: \u2018theory\u2019, \u2018hypothesis\u2019 and \u2018query\u2019.\u00a0 Steffen Ducheyne<\/a> has argued that Newton did this in other aspects of his methodology, such as his dual-methods of analysis and synthesis.\u00a0 This suggests that Newton\u2019s labeling and naming of things was very much post hoc<\/em>.\u00a0 It seems that, when discussing Newton\u2019s methodology, we should emphasize divisions and functions over definitions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              Kirsten Walsh writes… In my last two posts, I have discussed my alterations to the 20 theses of our project.\u00a0 In this post, I\u2019ll continue to discuss thesis 8. In 2011, I claimed that: 8.\u00a0 The development of Newton\u2019s method […]<\/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":[289,359,224,238],"class_list":["post-3212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideas","tag-baconian","tag-hypothesis","tag-newton","tag-queries"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3212","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=3212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}