Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:25:38.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Newtonian Induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Ori Belkind
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines Newton’s method of induction and its connection to methodological atomism. The article argues that Newton’s Rule III for the Study of Natural Philosophy is a criterion for isolating the primary qualities of the atomic parts; in other words, it interprets Rule III as a transductive inference. It is shown that both the standard inductive and invariance interpretations of Rule III can be subsumed under the transductive view, although the invariance criterion is reinterpreted; by qualities “that cannot be intended or remitted,” Newton means qualities that are invariant under changes in the configuration of the atomic parts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 677 - 697
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I would like to thank the two anonymous referees for providing excellent comments and constructive criticisms. I would also like to thank Zvi Biener, Katherine Brading, and Eric Schliesser for reading and commenting on earlier manifestations of ideas expressed here. I have also presented a similar paper in various forums; I am grateful for the comments and questions I received from several participants.

References

Belkind, Ori. 2012. “Newton’s Scientific Method and the Universal Law of Gravitation.” In Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays, ed. Schliesser, E. and Janiak, A., chap. 6, 138–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biener, Zvi, and Smeenk, Chris. 2012. “Cotes’ Queries: Newton’s Empiricism and Conceptions of Matter.” In Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays, ed. Schliesser, E. and Janiak, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, Robert. 1999. The Works of Robert Boyle, Vol. 5, The Origins of Forms and Qualities. 14 vols. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
Brading, Katherine. 2012. “Newton’s Law-Constitutive Approach to Bodies: A Response to Descartes.” In Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays, ed. Schliesser, E. and Janiak, A., 13–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burtt, E. A. 1954. The Metaphysical Foundation of Science. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
De Pierris, Graciela. 2012. “Newton, Locke, and Hume.” In Interpreting Newton: Critical Essays, ed. Schliesser, E. and Janiak, A., 257–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorling, Jon. 1973. “Demonstrative Induction: Its Significant Role in the History of Physics.” Philosophy of Science 40 (3): 360–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen. 2012. The Main Business of Natural Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 1974. “Newton’s Third Rule of Philosophizing: A Role for Logic in Historiography.” Isis, no. 1:66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, Clark N., and Stalker, Douglas. 1980. Theory and Evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Norwood R. 1970. “Hypotheses Fingo.” In The Methodological Heritage of Newton, ed. Butts, R. E. and Davis, J. W., 14–33. Toronto: Toronto University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, William. 1990. “Newton’s Classic Deductions from Phenomena.” In PSA 1990, Vol. 2, Symposia and Invited Papers, 183–96. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Harper, William 2002. “Newton’s Argument for Universal Gravitation.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton, ed. Cohen, I. B. and Smith, G. E., 174–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. E. 2012. Isaac Newton’s Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence about Gravity and Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, C. A. 1991. “From Phenomena to Metaphysics.” In Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala: Papers from the 9th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, ed. Prawitz, D. and Weterstal, D., 159–84. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Janiak, Andrew. 2010. Newton as Philosopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexander. 1965. Newtonian Studies. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbaum, Maurice. 1966. Philosophy, Science and Sense-Perception: Historical and Critical Studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
McGuire, J. E. 1967. “Transmutation and Immutability: Newton’s Doctrine of Physical Qualities.” Ambix 14 (2): 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, J. E. 1968a. “Force, Active Principles, and Newton’s Invisible Realms.” Ambix 15 (3): 154–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, J. E. 1968b. “The Origins of Newton’s Doctrine of Essential Qualities.” Centaurus 12:233–60.Google Scholar
McGuire, J. E. 1970. “Atoms and the ‘Analogy of Nature’: Newton’s Third Rule of Philosophizing.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 1 (1): 3–58.. Repr. in Tradition and Innovation: Newton’s Metaphysics of Nature (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1978. Newton on Matter and Activity. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. 1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Trans. Cohen, I. B. and Whitman, A.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1989. “The Foundation of All Philosophy: Newton’s Third Rule.” In An Intimate Relation: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 116 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Brown, J. R. and Mittelstrass, J., 97–113. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeenk, Chris, and Schliesser, Eric. 2013. “Newton’s Principia.” In Oxford Handbook for the History of Physics, ed. Buchwald, R. and Fox, J. Z., chap. 5, 109–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, George E. 2002a. “From the Phenomena of the Ellipse to an Inverse-Square Force: Why Not?” In Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics, ed. Malament, D., 31–70. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Malament, D. 2002b. “The Methodology of the Principia.” In The Cambridge Companion to Newton, ed. Cohen, I. B. and Smith, G. E., 138–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Howard. 1970. “On the Notion of Field in Newton, Maxwell, and Beyond.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, ed. Stuewer, R. H., 5:264–310. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Stuewer, R. H. 1990. “‘From the Phenomena of Motions to the Forces of Nature’: Hypothesis or Deduction?” In PSA 1990, Vol. 2, Symposia and Invited Papers, 209–22. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Torreti, Roberto. 1999. The Philosophy of Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, William. 1971. Philosophy of Discovery. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar