{"id":4150,"date":"2016-10-04T20:00:29","date_gmt":"2016-10-04T08:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/?p=4150"},"modified":"2016-10-03T22:38:42","modified_gmt":"2016-10-03T10:38:42","slug":"how-general-was-newtons-experimental-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/how-general-was-newtons-experimental-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"How general was Newton\u2019s experimental philosophy?"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Newton is often taken to have spawned two important, but different, sciences: an experimental science exemplified in the Opticks<\/em>, and a mathematical science exemplified in the Principia<\/em>.\u00a0 I. Bernard Cohen and George Smith<\/a>, for example, write:<\/p>\n

There is, perhaps, no greater tribute to the genius of Isaac Newton than that he could thus engender two related but rather different traditions of doing science.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Like many commentators, they emphasise the differences between the austere, formal mathematism of Newton\u2019s so-called \u2018rational mechanics\u2019 and the complex and sophisticated experimentalism of his work on light and colour.\u00a0 And so, the two works are typically taken to exemplify very different methodologies.<\/p>\n

In contrast, on this blog, I have emphasised the common features, rather than the differences\u2014presenting a more integrated account of Newton\u2019s methodology.\u00a0 For example, I have argued that his claim, that the Principia <\/em>is a work of experimental philosophy, is something we should take seriously<\/a>.\u00a0 And so the mathematico-experimental method<\/a> is a feature of both the Opticks <\/em>and the Principia<\/em>.\u00a0 Moreover, I have argued that Newton\u2019s mathematico-experimental method can be broadly characterised by an epistemic triad<\/a>: a three-way epistemic division between theories<\/em>, hypotheses<\/em> and queries<\/em>.\u00a0 The epistemic triad drives Newton\u2019s optical work and his rational mechanics in a trajectory from experiment to certainty, using mathematical reasoning.<\/p>\n

\"\"While the Opticks <\/em>and the Principia<\/em> represent two fields to which Newton made important contributions, these impressive tomes do not signify the entirety of his research output\u2014nor even the bulk.\u00a0 During his lifetime, Newton produced vast quantities of written work on chymistry, theology and Church history, as well as mathematics.\u00a0 Over several posts, I plan to explore some of this less well-known work in order to learn more about Newton\u2019s methodology. \u00a0In particular, I want to see what kinds of methodological continuity, if any, there are between his many projects.<\/p>\n

This may seem like a fool’s errand.\u00a0 Indeed, these lesser-known parts of Newton\u2019s research have a poor reputation.\u00a0 One idea, floated by Jean-Baptiste Biot<\/a> in his 1829 biography, was that Newton\u2019s intellectual life divided naturally in two: prior to his mental breakdown in 1692, Newton\u2019s life was sane, rational and scientific, but afterwards was mad, irrational and religious.\u00a0 And so Newton\u2019s alchemical and theological manuscripts are often dismissed as the half-baked musings of an old man.\u00a0 In more recent times, however, commentators such as Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs<\/a>, William R. Newman<\/a>, Rob Iliffe<\/a> and Sarah Dry<\/a> (to name just a few!) have aimed to redress this situation.\u00a0 They have demonstrated that Newton\u2019s alchemical and theological pursuits were as much a part of his intellectual life as the optics, rational mechanics and mathematics, for which he is famous.\u00a0 So, firstly, if there was any kind of cleavage, it was not along disciplinary lines, and secondly, these intellectual pursuits should be counted as serious scholarship\u2014not simply to be swept under the proverbial rug.<\/p>\n

So what sorts of continuities should we expect to find?\u00a0 In the remainder of this post, I\u2019ll offer a few preliminary suggestions.<\/p>\n

One striking feature of Newton\u2019s published scientific work is how methodologically reflective it was.\u00a0 Perhaps we should expect similar reflections in his manuscripts on chymistry, theology or Church history.\u00a0 Indeed, a cursory look at the collection shows that Newton approached chymistry, theology and Church history with the same persistence and vigour that we find in his other work.\u00a0 Moreover, we can recognise several of the same methodological and foundational concerns.\u00a0 For example, Newton\u2019s interest in the restoration of an ancient tradition of knowledge that has been lost or corrupted, and the view that reason, hard work and disciplined empirical research are always preferable to speculation.<\/p>\n

Another feature of Newton\u2019s work that I have discussed on this blog<\/a> is what I call his \u2018rhetorical style\u2019: Newton borrowed familiar terms and bent them to his own needs.\u00a0 He is, moreover, best characterised as a methodological omnivore<\/a>\u2014he read widely on different methodologies and approaches, and selected from among them the best tools for the job.\u00a0 We might expect to find the same thing in his chymistry and theology. \u00a0Again, my preliminary reading offers some support.\u00a0 Newton appears to have been interested in all aspects of chymistry\u2014a heavily experimental discipline, often with a pragmatic eye to profit, as much about developing chemical technologies and pharmaceuticals as it is about turning base metals into gold.\u00a0 However, while Newton worked on the typical alchemist\u2019s project of deciphering ancient myths, he doesn\u2019t seem to have drunk the Kool-Aid.\u00a0 He appears to have been much more concerned with linking his chymical research to his more mainstream science\u2014for example, his matter theory.\u00a0 In short, in these manuscripts, we can recognise the same desire to penetrate appearances and arrive at the fundamental truths of nature that we find in his physics.<\/p>\n

Following on from this, we might also expect to find a concern for unification: the idea that Newton\u2019s many topics of investigation are in fact part of a larger project.\u00a0 For example, in Query 31 of the Opticks<\/em>, Newton argues for both ontological and methodological unification.\u00a0 Again, looking briefly at some of his alchemical manuscripts, we see a similar preoccupation.\u00a0 Newton\u2019s discussions of the \u2018vegetative spirit\u2019, for example, offer insight into the ways in which the various strands of his scholarly endeavours, including chymistry and theology, were united under one grand scheme.<\/p>\n

When understanding the development of Newton\u2019s thought, I often find it helpful to distinguish between Public-Newton and Private-Newton.\u00a0 I have argued that there are important methodological differences between the work that Newton published (and hence, was willing to assert and defend) and the work he kept private.\u00a0 While the former conforms, in some sense, to the experimental philosophy, the latter is typically much more speculative.\u00a0 The distinction is particularly useful when considering Newton\u2019s optical work<\/a>, where we find stark differences between draft material and the final published version.\u00a0 But I suspect it won\u2019t be so useful once we turn to his chymistry, theology and Church history, where many of Newton\u2019s unpublished manuscripts were in circulation\u2014some only among his closest circle of like-minded friends, and others, much more widely.\u00a0 And yet, this raises one final issue.\u00a0 Newton\u2019s efforts to pass off his published work as experimental philosophy may well have been politically motivated: by describing his work as \u2018experimental philosophy\u2019, he was signalling his commitment as much to the Royal Society as to observation- and experiment-based theorising.\u00a0 His chymical, theological and Church history manuscripts were circulated much more privately\u2014and presumably the same political motivations did not apply.\u00a0 When working outside the jurisdiction of the Royal Society, did Newton conform to the experimental philosophy?<\/p>\n

I\u2019d love to hear your thoughts on this!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kirsten Walsh writes… Newton is often taken to have spawned two important, but different, sciences: an experimental science exemplified in the Opticks, and a mathematical science exemplified in the Principia.\u00a0 I. Bernard Cohen and George Smith, for example, write: There […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4582,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[113],"tags":[16458,16460,226,224,12256],"class_list":["post-4150","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideas","tag-alchemy","tag-church-history","tag-experimental-philosophy","tag-newton","tag-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4150","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=4150"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4150\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4150"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4150"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/emxphi\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4150"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}