Kirsten Walsh writes\u2026<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
In my last few posts, I have been discussing the nature of observations and experiments in Newton\u2019s Opticks<\/i>.\u00a0 In my first post<\/a> on this topic, I argued that Newton\u2019s distinction between observation and experiment turns on their function.\u00a0 That is, the experiments introduced in book 1 offered individual, and crucial, support for particular propositions, whereas the observations introduced in books 2 and 3 only supported propositions collectively.\u00a0 In my next post<\/a>, I discussed the observations in more detail, arguing that they resemble Bacon\u2019s \u2018experientia literata\u2019<\/i>, the method by which natural histories were supposed to be generated.\u00a0 At the end of that post, I suggested that, in contrast to the observations, Newton\u2019s experiments look like Bacon\u2019s \u2018instances of special power\u2019, which are particularly illuminating cases introduced to provide support for specific propositions.\u00a0 Today I\u2019ll develop this idea.<\/p>\n Note, before we continue, that there are two issues here that can be treated independently of one another.\u00a0 One is establishing the extent of Bacon\u2019s historical influence on Newton; the other is establishing the extent to which Bacon\u2019s methodology can illuminate Newton\u2019s.\u00a0 In this post I am doing the latter – using Bacon\u2019s view only as an interpretive tool.<\/p>\n Identifying \u2018instances of special power\u2019 (ISPs) was an important step in the construction of a Baconian natural history.\u00a0 ISPs were experiments, procedures, and instruments that were held to be particularly informative or illuminative.\u00a0 These served a variety of purposes.\u00a0 Some functioned as \u2018core experiments\u2019, introduced at the very beginning of a natural history, and serving as the basis for further experiments.\u00a0 Others played a role later in the process.\u00a0 They included experiments that were supposed to be especially representative of a certain class of experiments, tools and experimental procedures that provided interesting shortcuts in the investigation, and model examples that came very close to providing theoretical generalisations.\u00a0 In some cases, a collection of ISPs constituted a natural history.<\/p>\n The following features were typical of ISPs.\u00a0 Firstly, they were considered to be particularly illuminating experiments, procedures or tools.\u00a0 For example, a crucial instance, or a particularly clear or informative experiment, or experimental procedure.\u00a0 Secondly, they were supposed to be replicated.\u00a0 On Bacon\u2019s view, replication was not merely an exercise for verifying evidence; it was an exercise for the mind, ensuring that one had truly grasped the phenomenon.\u00a0 Thirdly, they were versatile, in that they could be used in several different ways.\u00a0 As we shall see, the experiments of book 1 display these essential features.<\/p>\n In book 1 of the Opticks<\/i>, Newton employed a method of \u2018proof by experiments\u2019 to support his propositions.\u00a0 Each experiment was introduced to reveal a specific property of light, which in turn proved a particular proposition. \u00a0We know that Newton conducted many experiments in his optical investigations, so why did he present the experiments as<\/i> he did, when<\/i> he did? \u00a0When we consider Newton\u2019s experiments alongside Bacon\u2019s instances of special power, common features start to emerge.<\/p>\n Firstly, for each proposition he asserted, Newton introduced a small selection of experiments in support \u2013 those that he considered to be particularly illuminating or, in his own words, \u201cnecessary to the Argument\u201d.\u00a0 Unlike in his first paper<\/a>, in the Opticks<\/i>, Newton did not label any experiments \u2018experimentum crucis<\/i>\u2019<\/a>.\u00a0 But his use of terms such as \u2018necessary\u2019 and \u2018proof\u2019 make it clear that these experiments were supposed to provide strong support: just like ISPs.<\/p>\n Secondly, Newton usually provided more than one experiment to support each proposition.\u00a0 These were listed in order of increasing complexity and were carefully described and illustrated. \u00a0That Newton took this approach, as opposed to just reporting on their results, suggests that these experiments were supposed to be an exercise for the reader: they were about more than just proof or confirmation of the proposition. \u00a0The reader was supposed either to be able to replicate the experiment, or at least to understand its replicability. \u00a0Starting with the simplest experiment, Newton led his reader by the hand through the relevant properties of light, to ensure that they were properly grasped. \u00a0Like Bacon\u2019s ISPs, then, Newton\u2019s experiments were intended to be replicated.<\/p>\n Thirdly, Newton\u2019s experiments were recycled in a variety of roles in the Opticks<\/i>.\u00a0 For example, the experiments he used to support proposition 2 part II were experiments 12 and 14 from part I.\u00a0 Newton introduced and developed these experiments in several different contexts to illuminate and support different propositions. \u00a0Again, this is typical of Bacon\u2019s ISPs.<\/p>\n And so, Newton\u2019s experiments in the Opticks <\/i>play a role analogous to Bacon\u2019s instances of special power, and thinking of them as such explains why they are presented as they are. \u00a0They are particularly illuminating cases that are introduced to provide support for specific propositions. \u00a0Newton selected the experiments which best functioned as ISPs for inclusion in the Opticks<\/i>. \u00a0Moreover, seen in this light, the seemingly disparate set of experiments start to look like a far more cohesive collection, or a natural history.<\/p>\n Many commentators have emphasised the ways that Newton deviated from Baconian method.\u00a0 Through this sequence of posts, I have argued that the Opticks<\/i> provides a striking example of conformity to the Baconian method of natural history.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kirsten Walsh writes\u2026 In my last few posts, I have been discussing the nature of observations and experiments in Newton\u2019s Opticks.\u00a0 In my first post on this topic, I argued that Newton\u2019s distinction between observation and experiment turns on their […]<\/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":[246,276,16424,224],"class_list":["post-3570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideas","tag-bacon","tag-experiment","tag-instances-of-special-power","tag-newton"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570","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=3570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}