Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T08:15:47.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Walsh's Reading of Whewell's View of Necessity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Robert E. Butts
Robert E. Butts*
Affiliation:
Middlesex College University of Western Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a recent paper,[3], Harold T. Walsh has argued that (1) Whewell's commentators have in the past misunderstood his use of “necessary,” that (2) Whewell's theory of necessary truth developed only gradually through thirty years of scholarly activity, finally finding a “mature” expression in Philosophy of Discovery, published in 1860, and that (3) a proper understanding of Whewell's “mature” theory of necessary truth leads to a fundamental re-interpretation of the nature of the Ideas and of their role in scientific systems—that the meaning of “necessity” as Whewell expresses it in Philosophy of Discovery leads, in short, to a new and more illuminating reading of his philosophy of inductive science. It is my view that the three propositions asserting Walsh's view are incorrect, expecially the two important and crucial ones (2) and (3). In what follows, I shall state what seem to me to be the grounds for rejecting Walsh's view that Whewell's theory of necessity was not arrived at before 1860, and hence for rejecting his interpretation of some basic aspects of Whewell's philosophy of science.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 1965 , pp. 175 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1965

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] Ducasse, C. J., “Whewell's Philosophy of Scientific Discovery. II,” The Philosophical Review (Apr. 1951).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Todhunter, I., William Whewell, D. D. (London, 1976).Google Scholar
[3] Walsh, H. T., “Whewell on Necessity,” Philosophy of Science, 29, 2 (Apr. 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Whewell, W., Astronomy and General Physics considered with Reference to Natural Theology (London, 1833).Google Scholar
[5] Whewell, W., “Demonstration that All Matter is Heavy,” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, VII, Pt. II (1841). Reprinted as an appendix in [17] and [18].Google Scholar
[6] Whewell, W., An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics, 1st ed, (Cambridge, 1819).Google Scholar
[7] Whewell, W., An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics, 5th ed. (Cambridge, 1836).Google Scholar
[8] Whewell, W., History of the Inductive Sciences, 1st ed. (London, 1837), 3 vols.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Whewell, W., The History of Scientific Ideas (London, 1858), 2 vols.Google Scholar
[10] Whewell, W., Of Induction, with especial reference to Mr. Mill's System of Logic (London, 1849). Reprinted as part of [17].Google Scholar
[11] Whewell, W., Letter to Sir John Herschel, Apr. 11, 1844 (Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge). Printed as an appendix in [17] and [18].Google Scholar
[12] Whewell, W., Letters to Richard Jones: Aug. 16, 1822; Aug. 21, 1834; Sept. 6, 1837 (Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge).Google Scholar
[13] Whewell, W., Mechanical Euclid (Cambridge, 1837). One section, “Remarks on Mathematical Reasoning and on the Logic of Induction,” reprinted as an appendix in [18].Google Scholar
[14] Whewell, W., On the Motion of Points Constrained and Resisted, and on the Motion of a Rigid Body. The Second Part of a new edition of A Treatise on Dynamics (Cambridge, 1834).Google Scholar
[15] Whewell, W., “On the Nature of the Truth of the Laws of Motion,” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, V, Pt. II (1834). Reprinted as an appendix in [18].Google Scholar
[16] Whewell, W., Notebooks (1830-33): (1) Induction I-VI; (2) b. of Practical Skill and of Speculative Knowledge of the Different Nature of Pure and of Physical Science; (3) d. the Philosophy of the Progressive Sciences Introduction. Philosophy of the Pure Sciences (Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge).Google Scholar
[17] Whewell, W., On the Philosophy of Discovery (London, 1860).Google Scholar
[18] Whewell, W., The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 2nd ed. (London, 1847), 2 vols.Google Scholar
[19] Whewell, W., Of the Plurality of Worlds (London, 1853).Google Scholar
[20] Whewell, W., Of the Plurality of Worlds (1853). Copy containing 5 chapters printed but deleted from the published work. (Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge).Google Scholar
[21] Whewell, W., “Second Memoir on the Fundamental Antithesis of Philosophy,” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, VIII, Pt. V (1848).Google Scholar
[22] Whewell, W., Thoughts on the Study of Mathematics as Part of a Liberal Education (Cambridge, 1835).Google Scholar