Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:32:14.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Force and “Natural Motion”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

I. E. Hunt  and
W. A. Suchting
I. E. Hunt
Affiliation:
Macquarie University
W. A. Suchting
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brian Ellis has argued that the assigning of forces is, in the final analysis, a matter of convention. This conclusion is backed by the premises (1) that forces and force-effects are necessary and sufficient for each other, and (2) that the classification of some state of affairs as a force-effect is at least partly conventional. We argue that the first premise is false, that the second premise is ambiguous as between several senses of “conventional,” and finally that he has not established that force-effects are conventional in the sense required for the conclusion he wishes to draw.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 233 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 by 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.)

References

[1] Armstrong, D. M., A Materialist Theory of the Mind, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1968.Google Scholar
[2] Armstrong, D. M., “The Secondary Qualities,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 46, 1968, pp. 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Broad, C. D., Scientific Thought, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1923.Google Scholar
[4] Deutscher, M., “The Idea of Causal Connection” (unpublished).Google Scholar
[5] Duhem, P., The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, 2nd edit. 1914 (English translation, The University Press, Princeton, 1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Dijksterhuis, E. J., “The Origins of Classical Mechanics From Aristotle to Newton,” in Critical Problems in the History of Science (ed. Claggett, by M.), University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, 1959.Google Scholar
[7] Dijksterhuis, E. J., The Mechanisation of the World Picture, The University Press, Oxford, 1961.Google Scholar
[8] Einstein, A., Relativity—The Special and the General Theory, 14th edit., Methuen, London, 1946.Google Scholar
[9] Ellis, B., “The Origin and Nature of Newton's Laws of Motion,” in University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2: Beyond the Edge of Certainty, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965.Google Scholar
[10] Feyerabend, P. K., “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III (eds. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell), University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1962.Google Scholar
[11] Fine, A., “Explaining the Behaviour of Entities,” The Philosophical Review, vol. 75, 1966, pp. 496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Grünbaum, A., Philosophical Problems of Space and Time, Knopf, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
[13] Hanson, N. R., “A Response to Ellis's Concept of Newton's First Law,” in University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 2: Beyond the Edge of Certainty, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1965.Google Scholar
[14] Herivel, J., The Background to Newton's ‘Principia', The University Press, Oxford, 1965.Google Scholar
[15] Hume, D., A Treatise of Human Nature (ed. Selby-Bigge, A.), The University Press, Oxford, 1888.Google Scholar
[16] Hume, D., An Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding, 2nd edit., (ed. Selby-Bigge, A.), The University Press, Oxford, 1902.Google Scholar
[17] Jammer, M., Concepts of Force, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1957.Google Scholar
[18] Jammer, M., “Force,” in Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (ed. Edwards, P.), Macmillan, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[19] Landau, L., “Grünbaum on ‘The Duhemian Argument',” Philosophy of Science, vol. 32, 1965, pp. 295–299.Google Scholar
[20] Mach, E., Popular Scientific Lectures, 1896 (English translation, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois, 1943).Google Scholar
[21] Martin, C. B. and Deutscher, M., “Remembering,” The Philosophical Review, vol. 75, 1966, 161–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Medlin, B., “Ryle and the Mechanical Hypothesis,” in The Identity Theory of Mind (ed. Presley, C. F.), Queensland University Press, Brisbane, 1967.Google Scholar
[23] Newton, I., Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Motte–Cajori translation, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1934.Google Scholar
[24] Pearson, K., The Grammar of Science, 1892 (Everyman edit., London, 1923).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Poincaré, H., Science and Hypothesis, 1902 (English translation, Dover, New York, n.d.).Google Scholar
[26] Quine, W. van O., Word and Object, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1960.Google Scholar
[26a] Russell, B. The Principles of Mathematics, 2nd edit., Norton, New York, 1938.Google Scholar
[27] Schaffner, K. F., “Approaches to Reduction,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 34, 1967, pp. 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Sklar, L., “The Falsifiability of Geometric Theories,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 64, 1967, pp. 247–253.10.2307/2024494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29] Sklar, L., “Types of Inter-Theoretic Reduction,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 18, 1967, pp. 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Smart, J. J. C., Philosophy and Scientific Realism, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963.Google Scholar
[31] Watson, W. H., On Understanding Physics, The University Press, Cambridge, 1937.Google Scholar