Towards Descartes’ Scientific Method: a posteriori Evidence and the Rhetoric of Les Météores

Brissey, Patrick

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91869-3_4

Patrick Brissey⁴

Part of the book series: International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées ((ARCH,volume 225))

293 Accesses

Abstract

I argue that Descartes uses his method as evidence in the Discours and Les Météores. I begin by establishing there is a single method in Descartes’ works, using his meteorology as a case study. First, I hold that the method of the Regulae is best explained by two examples: one scientific, his proof of the anaclastic curve (1626), and one metaphysical, his question of the essence and scope of human knowledge (1628). Based on this account, I suggest that the form of his early metaphysics (not its content) is similar to the method of doubt of the Meditationes. Second, I argue that Descartes’ explanation of the cause of parhelia (1629) likewise contains a formulation of this procedure. I provide a novel reading of Les Météores, where, following Descartes’ guidance in the Discours and Correspondance, I interpret his meteorology by reasoning from effects to causes, in this case, from Christoph Scheiner’s 1626 observation of parhelia to his meteorological foundation. This backwards orientation to Les Météores, I argue, reveals an instance of Descartes’ scientific method. I conclude with remarks on Descartes’ concept of evidentia, in which I explain how he incorporates a posteriori evidence and an apparent hypothetical foundation into his rationalist epistemology where he uses his method as evidence for his claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
In this paper, I use the following abbreviations: AT = René Descartes, Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. by Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, 11 vols, 2nd edition (Paris: Vrin, 1964–1974); CSM = René Descartes, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, 3 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984–1985), vols I and II; CSMK = René Descartes, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny, 3 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), vol. III; Le Monde = René Descartes, The World and Other Writings, trans. S. Gaukroger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998), 3–75; L’homme = ibid., 99–169; La Dioptrique = René Descartes, Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology, trans. Paul Olscamp (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), 65–173; Les Météores = ibid., 263–361.
2.
July 13, 1638 to Morin, AT II, 200; CSMK III, 107.
3.
Rule I, AT X, 359; CSM I, 9; Rule IV, AT X, 371; CSM I, 16; Rule I, AT X, 361; CSM I, 10; End of May 1637 to an unknown correspondent, AT I, 370; CSMK III, 58; “Dedicatory Letter to the Sorbonne,” AT VII, 3; CSM II, 4. On the interconnectedness of the sciences, see Discours, AT VI, 76; CSM I, 150; April 15, 1630 to Mersenne, AT I, 140–141; CSMK III, 22; February 22, 1638 to Vatier, AT I, 562, 564; CSMK III, 87, 88. For an interpretation of Descartes’ Discours as presentation of his early philosophical system, see Patrick Brissey, “Descartes’ Discours as a Plan for a Universal Science,” Studia UBB. Philosophia 58 (2013), 37–60. For an alternative, see Gilbert Gadoffre, “Introduction et remarques de Gilbert Gadoffre Descartes,” in René Descartes’ Discours de la Méthode (Manchester: Editions de l’Université de Manchester, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1961, 1967, 1974).
4.
Edwin Curley, Descartes Against the Skeptics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), chap. 2; Peter Dear, “Method and the Study of Nature,” in The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, eds Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers, vol. 1, 147–177 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Daniel Garber, “Descartes and Method in 1637,” in Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy through Cartesian Science, 33–51 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Daniel Garber, Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Gary Hatfield, “Science, Certainty, and Descartes,” in Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, ed. A. Fine and J. Leplin, vol. 2, 249–262 (East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989).
5.
For a succinct explanation of this problem and a plausible response, see Roger Florka, “Problems with the Garber-Dear Theory of the Disappearance of Method,” Philosophical Studies 117 (2004): 131–141.
6.
John Schuster, Descartes-Agonistes: Physico-mathematics, Method and Corpuscular-Mechanism 1618–33 (Sydney: Springer, 2013), chap. 2.
7.
Schuster, Descartes-Agonistes, chap. 6.
8.
For instance, Schuster provides a plausible explanation of Descartes’ route to the law of refraction. See Schuster, Descartes-Agonistes, chap. 4.
9.
Garber, Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics, 49 and Dear, “Method and the Study of Nature,” 159.
10.
Schuster’s characterization of Descartes is akin to that of Richard Watson in his Cogito, Ergo Sum: The Life of Descartes (New Hampshire: Godine Publishing, 2002).
11.
L. J. Beck, The Method of Descartes: A Study of the Regulae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952); Florka, “Problems”; Peter Schouls, The Imposition of Method: A Study of Locke and Descartes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).
12.
See Jean-Paul Weber, La constitution du texte des Regulae (Paris: Société d’édition d’enseignement supérieur, 1964) and Gadoffre, “Introduction.”
13.
It is unclear what level of doubt that an “indubitable cognition” must withstand in this case (CSM I, 10; AT X, 362). For an account of Descartes’ early approach to skepticism, see Matthew J. Kisner, “Skepticism and the Early Descartes,” British Journal of the History of Philosophy 13 (2005): 207–232.
14.
Rule III, AT X, 368; CSM I, 14; AT X, 407–408; CSM I, 37; Rule III, AT X, 369; CSM I, 15.
15.
Rule V, AT X, 379; CSM II, 20. See also Discours, AT VI, 18–19; CSM I, 120.
16.
Many complained about the lack of method. For instance, see February 27, 1637 letter to Mersenne, AT I, 348–350; CSMK III, 52–53.
17.
Rule VIII, AT X, 397; CSM I, 31. I argue elsewhere that this is a definitive example not of the full-fledged method but of Rule VIII itself. See Patrick Brissey, “Rule VIII of Descartes’ Regulae ad directionem ingenii,” Journal of Early Modern Studies 3 (2014): 9–31.
18.
Garber, “Descartes and Method in 1637,” 37 and Daniel Garber, “Descartes and Experiment in the Discourse and Essays,” in Descartes Embodied, 85–110 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 88. I have discarded Garber’s proposal of Descartes’ answers due to my focus on his reductive procedure.
19.
Rule VIII, AT X, 395; CSM I, 29.
20.
René Descartes, Œuvres Complètes de René Descartes, ed. by André Gombay, assisted by Calvin Normore, Randal Keen and Rod Watkins (Toronto: Connaught Descartes Project, University of Toronto; Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation, 2001).
21.
AT VI, 194; La Dioptrique, 144. Descartes uses experiments and other procedures in the discovery phase. See February 2, 1632 to Golius, AT I, 236–240; CSMK III, 34–36.
22.
Schuster, Descartes-Agonistes, 167–220. See also John A. Schuster, “Physico-Mathematics and the Search for Causes in Descartes’ Optics—1619–37,” Synthese 185 (2012), 467–499.
23.
Schuster, Descartes-Agonistes, chap. 4.
24.
For an example, see February 2, 1632 to Golius, AT I, 236–240; CSMK III, 34–36.
25.
For a more exhaustive account of Descartes’ intuition, see Brissey, “Rule VIII,” 19–21.
26.
Rule II, AT X, 362; CSM I, 10 and Rule III, AT X, 369–369; CSM I, 14–15.
27.
Rule VIII, AT X, 398; CSM I, 32.
28.
Rule VIII, AT X, 398; CSM I, 32.
29.
Jean Luc-Marion provides a plausible depiction of Descartes’ position in the late 1620s, drawing largely on the metaphysical examples in Rule XII. See Jean-Luc Marion, “Cartesian Metaphysics and the Role of Simple Natures,” in The Cambridge Companion to Descartes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 115–139.
30.
I provide an argument for this claim elsewhere. See Patrick Brissey, “The Form of Descartes’ Method of Doubt,” Southwest Philosophy Review 2 (2017): 233–249.
31.
Desmond Clarke, Descartes’ Philosophy of Science (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982), 180–185; Dear, “Method and the Study of Nature”; Garber, Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics, chap. 2; Hatfield, “Science, Certainty, and Descartes”; Craig Martin, Renaissance Meteorology: Poponazzi to Descartes (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011), 128–132; Paul J. Olscamp, “Introduction,” in René Descartes’ Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology, trans. Paul J. Olscamp (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001), xxx–xxxiv.
32.
Les Météores AT VI, 76; CSM I, 150; Discours, AT VI, 76; CSM I, 150.
33.
Discours, AT VI, 4; CSM I, 112; End of May 1637 to an unknown correspondent, AT I, 370; CSMK III, 58; February 27, 1637 to Mersenne, AT I, 349; CSMK III, 53. February 22, 1638 to Vatier, AT I, 559; CSMK III, 85 (emphasis added).
34.
Descartes makes this claim throughout his writings: see Discours, AT VI, 76; CSM I, 150; Rule XII, AT X, 428; CSM I, 50; Rule XIII, AT X, 433; CSM I, 53; July 13, 1637 to Morin, AT II, 198; CSMK III, 106–107; October 1637 to Noël, AT I, 455; CSMK III, 75. For Descartes’ analysis/synthesis distinction, see Second Replies, AT VII, 155–159; CSM II, 110–113. For a discussion of this passage, see Stephen Gaukroger, Cartesian Logic: An Essay on Descartes’s Conception of Inference (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), chap. 3 and 99–102.
35.
Discours, AT VI, 76; CSM I, 150 (emphasis added). Descartes makes a similar claim in his explanation of his use of experimentation. See Discours, AT VI, 63–65; CSM I, 143–144. See also Regulae, AT X, XIII 433; CSM I, 53.
36.
Descartes thought Les Météores could serve as a textbook on meteorology. See October 1637 to Noël, AT I, 455; CSMK III, 75; Letter to Father Dinet, AT VII, 573; CSM II, 386. See also Martin, Renaissance Meteorology, chap. 6.
37.
October 8, 1629 to Mersenne, AT I, 23; CSMK III, 6. See also Delphine Bellis, “An Epistoloary Lab: The Case of Parhelia and Halos in Descartes’ Corespondence (1629–1630),” in The Circulation of Science and Technology: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the ESHS, Barcelona, 18–20 November 2010, ed. A. Rosell, 372–377 (Barcelona: SCHCT-IEC, ROCA, 2012).
38.
Bellis, “An Epistoloary Lab,” 375.
39.
October 8, 1629 to Mersenne, AT I, 23; CSMK III, 6 (emphasis added).
40.
October 8, 1629 to Mersenne, AT I, 23; CSMK III, 6.
41.
November 13, 1629 to Mersenne, AT I, 70; CSMK III, 7 (emphasis added).
42.
AT VI, 323; Les Météores, 354.
43.
AT VI, 363; Les Météores, 358.
44.
Descartes had much more to say on visual perception in Le Monde ou Traité de la lumière, L’homme, and La Dioptrique.
45.
Descartes thought he could deduce the foundation of his Les Météores. See December 20, 1637 to Plempius, AT I, 476; CSMK III, 77. For this reason, his intuition is composite, an immediately known deduction. See Rule XI, AT X, 407–408; CSM I, 37.
46.
AT VI, 233; Les Météores, 264; February 22, 1638 to Vatier, AT I, 562–564; CSMK III, 87–88; May 27, 1638 to Mersenne, AT II, 141–143; CSMK III, 103; July 13, 1638 to Morin, AT II, 197–201; CSMK III, 106–108.
47.
For the status of certainty in Descartes’ works, see Daniel Garber, “Descartes on Knowledge and Certainty,” in Descartes Embodied, 111–132 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
48.
Rule III, AT X, 368; CSM I, 14 and First Meditation, AT VII, 18; CSM II, 17.
49.
Part Six, AT VI 76; CSM I 150 (emphasis added).
50.
Descartes writes in the first sentence of Part Five: “I would gladly go on and reveal the whole chain of other truths that I deduced from these first ones [the principles of metaphysics].” See Discours, AT VI, 40; CSM I, 131.
51.
Patrick Brissey, “Descartes and the Meteorology of the World,” Society and Politics 6 (2012): 88–100.
52.
February 22, 1638 to Vatier, AT I 563; CSMK III 87. See also July 13, 1638 to Morin, AT II, 201; CSMK III, 108 and Letter to Father Dinet, AT VII, 602–603; CSM II, 397.
53.
Principia, AT IXB, 14; CSM I, 186.
54.
Rule III, AT X, 369; CSM I, 14–15; Rule VII, AT X, 387–388; CSM I, 25; and Discours, AT VII, 18; CSM I, 120.
55.
For Descartes’ reduction of deductions to intuitions, see Rule VII, AT X, 387–388; CSM I, 25 and Discours, Part two, AT VI, 19; CSM I, 120.
56.
End of November 1633 to Mersenne, AT I, 270–271; CSMK III, 40–41.
57.
End of November 1633 to Mersenne, AT I, 270–272; CSMK III, 40–42 and February 1634 to Mersenne, AT I, 281–282; CSMK III, 41–42.
58.
Brissey, “Descartes’ Discours as a Plan for a Universal Science,” 50–54.
59.
June or July 1635 to Mersenne, AT I, 322; CSMK III, 49 and November 1, 1635 to Huygens, AT I, 591–592; CSMK III, 50. He later includes La Géométrie, which was also included among the Essais. See March 1636 to Mersenne, AT I, 339–340; CSMK III, 51.
60.
He may have devised this plan around 1629. See October 8, 1629 to Mersenne, AT I, 23–24; CSMK III, 6–7. See also Letter to Father Dinet, AT VII, 574–577; CSM II, 387–390.
61.
The method also requires one to reduce the deductive chain of reasoning to an immediate intuition. See Regulae, AT X, 387–388, 407–408; CSM I, 25, 37; and Discours, AT VI, 18–19; CSM I, 120.
62.
Rule XII, AT X, 425; CSM I, 48 (emphasis added).
63.
Rule II, AT X, 364–365; CSM I, 12 (emphasis added).
64.
Descartes’ analysis of a piece of burning wax in the Second Mediation is an excellent example. See AT VII, 30–31; CSM I, 20–21.
65.
AT VI, 109; La Dioptrique, 87.
66.
AT XI, 4; Le Monde, 4. See also Discours, AT IV, 39; CSM I, 130; Meditationes, AT VI, 598–60; CSM II, 40–42.
67.
For a concise explanation, see Garber, “Descartes and Experiment,” 104–110.
68.
Some well-known examples with the intellect regulating the senses is his wax example (Second Meditation, AT VII, 31; CSM II, 20–21) and the perception astronomical phenomena (Discours, AT VI, 39–40; CSM I, 130–131; Sixth Meditation, AT VII, 76–77; CSM II, 52–53). In regard to the latter, he tells that such phenomena appear small to the senses, but “we know well, through reason [raison], that they are extremely large and extremely far away” (AT VI, 144; La Dioptrique, 111).
69.
For Descartes’ example in metaphysics, see Table 2.
70.
He most likely did not disclose many of his false paths because Les Météores was written, in part, as a textbook on meteorology. See October 1637 to Noël, AT I, 455; CSM I, 75 and Letter to Father Dinet, AT VII, 573; CSM II, 386.
71.
AT VI, 325; Les Météores, 332 and February 22, 1638 to Vatier, AT I, 558; CSMK III, 85.
72.
For an exhaustive account of Descartes’ explanation of the rainbow, see Garber, “Descartes and Experiment,” 94–102.
73.
AT VI, 233; Les Météores, 264.
74.
AT VI, 233; Les Météores, 264.
75.
In Le Monde, he tells that air is easier to separate than water. For this reason, air particles are conceived as spherical to explain the difference in hardness or fluidity. See AT XI, 25; Le Monde, 17.
76.
October 3, 1637 to Plempius for Fromondus, AT I, 422–424; CSMK III, 65–66.
77.
October 3, 1637 to Plempius for Fromondus, AT I, 422–423; CSMK III, 65.
78.
October 3, 1637 to Plempius for Fromondus, AT I, 423; CSMK III, 65.
79.
October 3, 1637 to Plempius for Fromondus, AT I, 423; CSMK III, 65–66.
80.
October 3, 1637 to Plempius for Fromondus, AT I, 423; CSMK III, 66.
81.
On moral certainty, see Discours, Part Three, AT VI, 28–29; CSM I, 125 and Part Four, AT VI, 37–38; CSM I, 129–130.
82.
Rule XII, AT X, 420; CSM I, 45.
83.
Fourth Meditation, AT VII, 58; CSM II, 40–41. For Descartes’ account of error in the Olympica, Regulae, and Discours, see Patrick Brissey, “Reflections on Descartes’ Vocation as an Early Theory of Happiness,” Journal of Early Modern Studies 4 (2015): 69–91.
84.
October 3, 1637 to Plempius for Fromondus, AT I, 423–424; CSMK III, 66. He also makes this claim in the Regulae and Meditationes. See Rule VII, AT X, 390–391; CSM I, 27 and First Meditation, AT VII, 18; CSM II, 12.

References

Beck, L. J. 1952. The Method of Descartes: A Study of the Regulae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Bellis, Delphine. 2012. An Epistolary Lab: The Case of Parhelia and Halos in Descartes’ Correspondence (1629–1630). In The Circulation of Science and Technology: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the ESHS, Barcelona, 18–20 November 2010, ed. A. Rosell, 372–377. Barcelona: SCHCT-IEC, ROCA.
Google Scholar
Brissey, Patrick. 2012. Descartes and the Meteorology of the World. Society and Politics 6: 88–100.
Google Scholar
———. 2013. Descartes’ Discours as a Plan for a Universal Science. Studia UBB. Philosophia 58: 37–60.
Google Scholar
———. 2014. Rule VIII of Descartes’ Regulae ad directionem ingenii. Journal of Early Modern Studies 3: 9–31.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2015. Reflections on Descartes’ Vocation as an Early Theory of Happiness. Journal of Early Modern Studies 4: 69–91.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2017. The Form of Descartes’ Method of Doubt. Southwest Philosophy Review 2: 233–249.
Google Scholar
Clarke, Desmond. 1982. Descartes’ Philosophy of Science. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Google Scholar
Curley, Edwin. 1978. Descartes Against the Skeptics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Dear, Peter. 1984. Method and the Study of Nature. In The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, ed. Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers, vol. 1, 147–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 1964–1974. Oeuvres de Descartes. Ed. C. Adam and P. Tannery, 11 vols, 2nd ed. Paris: Vrin.
Google Scholar
———. 1984–1991. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes. Ed. and Trans. J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
———. 1998. The World and Other Writings. Trans. Stephen Gaukroger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2001a. Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology. Trans. P. J. Olscamp. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Google Scholar
———. 2001b. In Oeuvres Complètes de René Descartes. Ed. André Gombay, Calvin Normore, Randal Keen, and Rod Watkins. Toronto/Charlottesville: Connaught Descartes Project, University of Toronto/InteLex Corporation.
Google Scholar
Florka, Roger. 2004. Problems with the Garber-Dear Theory of the Disappearance of Method. Philosophical Studies 117: 131–141.
Article Google Scholar
Gadoffre, Gilbert. 1941, 1945, 1949, 1961, 1967, 1974. Introduction et remarques de Gilbert Gadoffre Descartes. In René Descartes’ Discours de la Méthode. Manchester: Editions de l’Université de Manchester.
Google Scholar
Garber, Daniel. 1992. Descartes’ Metaphysical Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2000. Descartes on Knowledge and Certainty. In Descartes Embodied, 111–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
———. 2000a. Descartes and Experiment in the Discourse and Essays. In Descartes Embodied, 85–110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
———. 2000b. Descartes and Method in 1637. In Descartes Embodied, 33–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen. 1989. Cartesian Logic: An Essay on Descartes’s Conception of Inference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary. 1989. Science, Certainty, and Descartes. In Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, ed. A. Fine and J. Leplin, vol. 2, 249–262. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.
Google Scholar
Kisner, Matthew J. 2005. Skepticism and the Early Descartes. British Journal of the History of Philosophy 13: 207–232.
Article Google Scholar
Marion, Jean-Luc. 1992. Cartesian Metaphysics and the Role of Simple Natures. In The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, ed. John Cottingham, 115–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Martin, Craig. 2011. Renaissance Meteorology: Poponazzi to Descartes. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Olscamp, Paul J. 2001. Introduction. In Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meteorology. Ed. René Descartes’ and Trans. Paul J. Olscamp, ix–xxxvi. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Google Scholar
Schouls, Peter. 1980. The Imposition of Method: A Study of Locke and Descartes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Schuster, John A. 2012. Physico-Mathematics and the Search for Causes in Descartes’ Optics—1619–37. Synthese 185: 467–499.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2013. Descartes-Agonistes: Physico-mathematics, Method and Corpuscular-Mechanism 1618–33. Sydney: Springer.
Book Google Scholar
Watson, Richard. 2002. Cogito, Ergo Sum: The Life of Descartes. New Hampshire: Godine Publishing.
Google Scholar
Weber, Jean-Paul. 1964. La constitution du texte des Regulae. Paris: Société d’édition d’enseignement supérieur.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
Patrick Brissey

Authors

Patrick Brissey
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Institute of Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
James A.T. Lancaster
Department of History, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada
Richard Raiswell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brissey, P. (2018). Towards Descartes’ Scientific Method: a posteriori Evidence and the Rhetoric of Les Météores . In: Lancaster, J., Raiswell, R. (eds) Evidence in the Age of the New Sciences. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 225. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91869-3_4

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91869-3_4
Published: 25 October 2018
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91868-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91869-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics