Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T15:25:15.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ruggiero Boscovich and “the Forces Existing in Nature”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Luca Guzzardi
Luca Guzzardi*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

According to a long-standing interpretation which traces back to Max Jammer's Concepts of Force (1957), Ruggiero G. Boscovich would have developed a concept of force in the tradition of Leibniz's dynamics. In his variation on the theme, basic properties of matter such as solidity or impenetrability would be derived from an interplay of some “active” force of attraction and repulsion that any primary element of nature (“point of matter” in Boscovich's theory) would possess. In the present paper I discuss many flaws of this interpretation and argue for an alternative point of view, according to which the crucial aspect in the development of Boscovich's natural philosophy is his early definition of forces as “mathematical determinations” to have a certain state of motion. This is consistent with a Newtonian background and has as its epistemological consequence a certain agnosticism about the nature of forces and a “mathematical neutralism” (mathematics as a neutral tool, allowing for a plurality of interpretations).

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 385 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Volumes from Edizione Nazionale delle Opere e della Corrispondenza di Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich (Roma-Milano, 2009 ff.) are quoted as ENo or ENc (for the section “Opere” or “Corrispondenza” respectively) plus the corresponding volume number. The volumes are freely accessible at http://www.edizionenazionaleboscovich.it/index.php/biblioteca-digitale.html.Google Scholar
Anon. 1760. “Philosophiae naturalis theoria, etc. [Review of].” Journal étranger. Février: 52–74; Mars: 61–88.Google Scholar
Baldini, Ugo. 1992. “Boscovich e la tradizione gesuitica in filosofia naturale: continuità e cambiamento.” Nuncius 7 (2):3–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, John D. [1992] 2007. New Theories of Everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1740. De motu corporum projectorum in spatio non resistente dissertatio. Romae: de Rubeis.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1743. De motu corporis attracti in centrum immobile viribus. Romae: Komarek.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1745. De viribus vivis. Romae: Komarek. New edition in: ENo, VI, Opere precedenti la Theoria, edited by Guzzardi, Luca & Bevilacqua, Fabio.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1748. Dissertationis de lumine, pars secunda. Romae: Komarek.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1754a. De transformatione locorum geometricorum, ubi de continuitatis lege, ac de quibusdam Infiniti mysteriis . In Elementorum universae matheseos tomus iii. Continens sectionum conicarum elementa. New edition in ENo, II, edited by Pepe, Luigi, 709–1203. Romae: Salomoni.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1754b. De continuitatis lege et ejus consectariis pertinentibus ad prima materiae elementa eorumque vires. New edition in: ENo, VI, Opere precedenti la Theoria, edited by Guzzardi, Luca and Bevilacqua, Fabio. Romae: Salomoni.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1755a. De lege virium in natura existentium. New edition in: ENo, VI, Opere precedenti la Theoria, edited by Guzzardi, Luca and Bevilacqua, Fabio. Romae: Salomoni.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1755b. “§14. In notam ad vers. 1485: De variis virium activarum generibus, et earum effectu.” In Philosophiae recentioris a Benedicto Stay versibus traditae Libri X [. . .] cum adnotationibus, et Supplementis P. Rogerii Josephi Boscovich, Tomus I, 370–374. Romae: Palearini.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1757. “De materiae divisibilitate et principiis corporum.” Memorie sopra la fisica IV:131-258. New edition in: ENo, VI, Opere precedenti la Theoria, edited by Guzzardi, Luca and Bevilacqua, Fabio.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 1758. Philosophiae naturalis theoria redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium. Prostat Viennae Austriae: Officina Libraria Kaliwodiana.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. [1763] 1922. Theoria philosophiae naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium, Editio veneta prima, Venetiis: Remondini. Quoted after the Latin-English edition: A Theory of Natural Philosophy. 1922. Edited by Child, James Mark, New York: The Open Court.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. [1754] 2001. De continuitatis lege. Über das Gesetz der Kontinuität. Übersetzt und herausgegeben von Josip Talanga. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Boscovich, Ruggiero Giuseppe. 2008. Carteggio con Giovan Stefano Conti. ENc, V(1), edited by Proverbio, Edoardo.Google Scholar
Casini, Paolo. 1966. “Carlo Benvenuti.” In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 8:661-663. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana.Google Scholar
Casini, Paolo. 1983. Newton e la coscienza europea. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Child, James Mark. 1922. “Introduction.” In A Theory of Natural Philosophy, by Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich, edited by Child, James Mark, xi-xix. New York: The Open Court.Google Scholar
Costabel, Pierre. 1960. Leibniz et la dynamique: les textes de 1692. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Costabel, Pierre. 1961. “Le De Viribus Vivis de R. Boscovich ou de la Vertu des Querelles de Mot.” Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 14:3–21.Google Scholar
Čuljak, Zvonimir. 1995. “Some aspects of explanation in Boškovič.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (3):73–84.Google Scholar
Čuljak, Zvonimir. 1998. Hypothesen und Phänomene. Die Erkenntnis- und Wissenschaftstheorie Ruder Boskovics zwischen Antirealismus und Realismus. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag.Google Scholar
Čuljak, Zvonimir. 2008. “Einige wissenschaftstheoretische Aspekte von Boškovićs Begründung seiner Theorie der Naturphilosophie: Methodischer Realismus.” In Ruđer Bošković (Boscovich) und sein Modell der Materie, edited by Grössing, Helmuth und Ullmaier, Hans, 67–81. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen. 2012. The Main Business of Natural Philosophy: Isaac Newton's Natural-Philosophical Methodology. Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
Ducheyne, Steffen. 2014. “Newton on Action at a Distance.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 52 (4):675–701.Google Scholar
Duchesneau, François. 1994. La dynamique de Leibniz. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Faraday, Michael. 1844. “A Speculation Touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter.” In Experimental Researches in Electricity II, edited by Faraday, Michael, 284–293. London: Richard and John Edward Taylor.Google Scholar
Faraday, Michael. 1855. “On Some Points of Magnetic Philosophy.” In Experimental Researches in Electricity III, edited by Faraday, Michael, 566–574. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Fichant, Michel. 2016. “Les dualités de la dynamique leibnizienne.” Lexicon philosophicum. International Journal for the History of Texts and Ideas 4:11–41.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2004. Introduction to I. Kant, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, edited by Friedman, Michael, vii-xxx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Michael. 2013. Kant's Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gale, George. 1970. “The Physical Theory of Leibniz.” Studia Leibnitiana 2 (2):114–127.Google Scholar
Gale, George. 1973. “Leibniz's Dynamical Metaphysics and the Origins of the vis viva Controversy.” Systematics 11:181–207.Google Scholar
Gale, George. 1974. “Leibniz and Some Aspects of Field Dynamics.” Studia Leibnitiana 6 (1):28–48.Google Scholar
Gale, George. 1988. “The Concept of ‘Force’ and Its Role in the Genesis of Leibniz's Dynamical Viewpoint.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (1):45–67.Google Scholar
Gandt, François de. 1995. Force and Geometry in Newton's Principia. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1985. “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years.” In The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, edited by Okruhlik, Kathleen and Brown, James Robert, 27–130. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1992. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 2009. Leibniz: Body, Substance, Monad. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grmek, Mirko. 1996. “La méthodologie de Boscovich.” Révue d'Histoire des Sciences 49 (4):379–400.Google Scholar
Gueroult, Martial. [1934] 1967. Dynamique et métaphysique leibniziennes. Paris: Les Belle Lettres. [Reprinted as Leibniz. Dynamique et Métaphysique. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne.]Google Scholar
Guicciardini, Niccolò. 1996. “Stars and Gravitation in Eighteenth Century Newtonian Astronomy.” In Copernico e la questione copernicana in Italia, edited by Pepe, Luigi, 263–280. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1985. “Why Motion is Only a Well-Founded Phenomenon.” In The Natural Philosophy of Leibniz, edited by Okruhlik, Kathleen and Brown, James Robert, 131–150. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1992. “Style for Historians and Philosophers.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (1):1–20.Google Scholar
Hales, Stephen. 1727. Vegetable Staticks: Or, An Account of some Statical Experiments on the Sap in Vegetables. London: W. Innys and R. Manby, and T. Woodward.Google Scholar
Haskell, Yasmin. 2003. Loyola's Bees: Ideology and Industry in Jesuit Latin Didactic Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harmon, Peter M. 1993. “Boscovich and British Natural Philosophy.” In R.J. Boscovich: Vita e attività scientifica – His Life and Scientific Work, edited by Bursill-Hall, Piers, 561–575. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar
Heilbron, John. 1979. Electricity in the 17th and 18th Centuries: A Study of Early Modern Physics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heilbron, John. 2015. “Boscovich in Britain.” In Relocating the History of Science, edited by Arabatzis, Theodore, Renn, Jürgen and Simões, Ana, 99–116. Springer: Cham.Google Scholar
Heilbron, John. 2017. “From the Roman College to the Royal Society.” In Boscovich and His Times: Contributions of the Pavia 2011 International Conference, edited by Bevilacqua, Fabio and Contardini, Patrizia. Pavia: University of Pavia Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Heimann, P. M. 1971. “Faraday's Theories of Matter and Electricity.” British Journal for the History of Science 5:235–257.Google Scholar
Heimann, P. M., and McGuire, J. E.. 1971. “Newtonian Forces and Lockean Powers: Concepts of Matter in Eighteenth-Century Thought.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3:233–306.Google Scholar
Heimann, P. M. 1978. “Voluntarism and Immanence: Conceptions of Nature in Eighteenth-Century Thought.” Journal of the History of Ideas 39 (2):271–283.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1961. Forces and Fields. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons.Google Scholar
Hertz, Heinrich. [1884] 1999. Die Constitution der Materie: Eine Vorlesung über die Grundlagen der Physik aus dem Jahre 1884, herausgegeben von Albrecht Fölsing. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Indorato, Luigi, and Nastasi, Pietro. 1993. “Boscovich and the Vis Viva Controversy.” In R.J. Boscovich: Vita e attività scientifica – His Life and Scientific Work, edited by Bursill-Hall, Piers, 169–194. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar
Iltis, Carolyn. 1967. The Vis Viva Controversy: Leibniz to D'Alembert. Phd diss. University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Iltis, Carolyn. 1970a. “D”Alembert and the Vis Viva Controversy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 1 (2):135–144.Google Scholar
Iltis, Carolyn. 1970b. “Leibniz's Concept of Force: Physics and Metaphysics.” Studia Leibnitiana. Supplementa 13:143–149.Google Scholar
Iltis, Carolyn. 1971. “Leibniz and the Vis Viva Controversy.” Isis 62:21–35.Google Scholar
Jammer, Max. 1957. Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundation of Dynamics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Janiak, Andrew. 2007. “Newton and the Reality of Force.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (1):127–147.Google Scholar
Joy, Lynn. 2008. “Scientific Explanation from Formal Causes to Laws of Nature.” In The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 3:Early Modern Science, edited by Park, Katharine and Daston, Lorraine, 70–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knudsen, Ole, and Pedersen, Kurt Møller. 1969. “The Link between ‘Determination’ and Conservation of Motion in Descartes’ Dynamics.” Centaurus 13:183–186.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. [1686a] 1989.“Brevis demonstratio erroris memorabilis Cartesii [. . .].” [Acta eruditorum, 1686]. In Leibnizens mathematische Schriften, edited by Gerhardt, Carl I., VI:117-123. Halle: Schmidt, 1860. English translation in Philosophical Papers and Letters. 1989. Edited by Loemker, Leroy E., 296–302. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. [1686b] [1880] 1989. [Discours de métaphysique.] In Die philosophischen Schriften von Leibniz, edited by Gerhardt, Carl I., IV: 427–463. Berlin: Weidmann, 1880. English translation: “Discourse on Metaphysics.” In Philosophical Papers and Letters, edited by Loemker, Leroy E., 35–68. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. [1695] [1860] 1989. “Specimen Dynamicum [. . .].” [Part I published in Acta eruditorum, 1695; Part II posthumous]. In Leibnizens mathematische Schriften, edited by Gerhardt, Carl I., VI: 234–254. Halle: Schmidt, 1860. English translation in Philosophical Papers and Letters, edited by Loemker, Leroy E., 118–138. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1994. La réforme de la dynamique. Edited by Fichant, Michel. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. [n.d.] 1890. [“Über die rechte Methode der Behandlung der Philosophie und der Theologie”]. In Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, edited by Gerhardt, Carl I. VII, 323–327. Berlin: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Marković, Želiko. 1961. “Boscovich's Theoria .” In Roger Joseph Boscovich: Studies of His Life and Work on the 20th Anniversary of His Birth, edited by Whyte, Lancelot Law, 127–152. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Martinović, Ivica. 1987. “The Fundamental Deductive Chain of Bošković’s Natural Philosophy.” In The Philosophy of Science of Ruđer Bošković, edited by Ivan Macan, Valentin Pozaić e, 65–99. Zagreb: Jumena.Google Scholar
Martinović, Ivica. 1990. “Theories and Inter-Theory Relations in Bošković.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4:247–262.Google Scholar
Martinović, Ivica. 1993. “Boscovich on the Problem of generatio velocitatis: Genesis and Methodological Implications.” In R.J. Boscovich: Vita e attività scientifica – His Life and Scientific Work, edited by Bursill-Hall, Piers, 59–79. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar
McCormmach, Russell. 2012. Weighing the World: The Reverend John Michell of Thornhill. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
McGuire, J. E. [1968]. 1996. “Force, Active Principles, and Newton's Invisible Realm.” In McGuire, J. E., Tradition and Innovation. Newton's Metaphysics of Nature, 190–238. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Originally in Ambix 15(3):154-208.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1978. Newton on Matter and Activity. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 2001. “The Impact of Newton's Principia on the Philosophy of Science.” Philosophy of Science 68:279–310.Google Scholar
Mendelssohn, Moses. 1759. “Brief 42”. In Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend. I. Theil., 351–365; 367–371. Berlin: Friedrich Nicolai.Google Scholar
Most, Glenn W. 1984. “Zur Entwicklung von Leibniz's Specimen Dynamicum.” In Leibniz's Dynamica. Studia Leibnitiana, Sonderheft 13, edited by Heinekamp, Albert, 148–163.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. [1687]1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translations by Cohen, I. Bernard and Whitman, A.. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Newton, Isaac. [1706][1730]1952. Optice: Sive De Reflexionibus, Refractionibus, Inflexionibus & Coloribus Lucis. Libri Tres, Londinii: Impensis Sam. Smith & Benj. Walford, Regiae Societatis Typograph. ad Insignia Principis in Cœmeterio D. Pauli. English translation: Opticks: Or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. Based on the 4th ed. London, 1730. New York: Dover, 1952.Google Scholar
Olson, Richard. 1969. “The Reception of Boscovich's Ideas in Scotland.” Isis 60 (1):91–103.Google Scholar
Papineau, David. 1977. “The Vis Viva Controversy: Do Meanings Matter?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 8 (2):111–142.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. 2001. Kants “Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft”: Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Proverbio, Edoardo. 2003. “Gli interessi scientifici di Ruggiero G. Boscovich per i fenomeni elettrici e i suoi incontri con Benjamin Franklin ed altri elettricisti inglesi e francesi.” Quaderni di Storia della Fisica 11:3–48.Google Scholar
Romano, Antonella. 2006. “Teaching Mathematics in Jesuit Schools: Programs, Course Content, and Classroom Practices.” In The Jesuits II: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540–1773, edited by O'Malley, John W., Bailey, Gauvin A., Harris, Steven J., and Kennedy, T. Frank, 356–370. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, Robert E. 1970. Mechanism and Materialism: British Natural Philosophy in an Age of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. Brookes. 1967. “Boscovich's Theory and its Relation to Faraday's Researches: An Analytic Approach.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 4 (3):184–202.Google Scholar
Stay, Benedict. 1755. Philosophiae recentioris [. . .] Versibus traditae Libri X [. . .] cum adnotationibus, et Supplementis P. Rogerii Josephi Boscovich, Tomus I, Palearini, Romae.Google Scholar
Tacconi, Ildefonso. 1934. I poemi filosofici latini di Benedetto Stay, il Lucrezio ragusino. Zadar: De Schönfeld,Google Scholar
Thackray, Arnold. 1970. Atoms and Powers: An Essay on Newtonian Matter-Theory and the Development of Chemistry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tho, Tzuchien. 2017a. “As Matter to Form so Passive to Active? The Irreducible Metaphysics of Leibniz's Dynamics.” In Tercentenary Essays on the Philosophy and Science of Leibniz, edited by Strickland, Lloyd, Vynckier, Erik, Weckend, Julia, 131–158. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tho, Tzuchien. 2017b. Vis Vim Vi: Declinations of Force in Leibniz's Dynamics. Springer: Cham.Google Scholar
van Lunteren, Frans Herbert. 1991. Framing Hypotheses: Conceptions of Gravity in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Ph.D. Thesis at Rijksuniversiteit: Utrecht.Google Scholar
Weijers, Olga. 2013. In Search of the Truth: A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to Early Modern Times. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. 1971. Force in Newton's Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Williams, L. Pearce. 1965. Michael Faraday: A Biography. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Whyte, Lancelot Law. 1961. “Boscovich's Atomism.” In Roger Joseph Boscovich. Studies of His Life and Work on the 20th Anniversary of His Birth, edited by Whyte, Lancelot Law, 102–126. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar