Advertisement

Four Methods of Empirical Inquiry in the Aftermath of Newton’s Challenge

  • Eric SchliesserEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 331)

Abstract

In this paper I distinguish four methods of empirical inquiry in eighteenth century natural philosophy. In particular, I distinguish among what I call, (i) the mathematical-experimental method; (ii) the method of experimental series; (iii) the method of inspecting ideas; (iv) the method of natural history. While such a list is not exhaustive of the methods of inquiry available, even so, focusing on these four methods will help in diagnosing a set of debates within what has come to be known as ‘empiricism’; throughout the eighteenth century there was a methodological reaction against the hegemonic aspirations of mathematical natural philosophy associated with the authority of Newton.

In particular, I argue that the methods of inspecting ideas and natural history remained attractive to ‘empiricist’ thinkers with reservations about aspects of Newtonianism. Moreover, I show that the language of experimentalism meant different things to researchers with different attitudes toward Newton’s legacy. In order to illustrate and make more precise these claims, I embed my taxonomic treatment of the four methods within a narrative in which I primarily focus on Colin Maclaurin, Isaac Newton, David Hume, and Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon.

Keywords

Empiricism Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon David Hume Colin Maclaurin Isaac Newton 

Bibliography

Other Primary Literature

  1. Berkeley, George. 1734. A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge… (1710). London: Jacob Tonson.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1951. De Motu (1721). In: The works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, ed. A.A. Luce and T.E. Jessop. London: Thomas Nelson, vol. 4, 31–52. 1948–57Google Scholar
  3. Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc de, and John Lyon. 1976. The ‘initial discourse’ to Buffon’s histoire naturelle: The first complete english translation. Journal of the History of Biology 9 (1): 133–181.Google Scholar
  4. Diderot, Denis. 1994. Œuvres, vol. 1: “Philosophie”, ed. L. Versini. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
  5. ’s Gravesande, Willem Jacob. 1747. The mathematical elements of natural philosophy confirmed by experiments: Or, an introduction to Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophy, Trans. John Theophilus Desaguliers, 3th ed. London: W. Innys.Google Scholar
  6. Hume, David. 2004. A treatise of human nature, ed. David Fate and Mary J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2007. An enquiry concerning human understanding (1777), ed. by Peter Millican. Oxford: Oxford University Press (digital edition): http://www.davidhume.org/texts/ehu.html.
  8. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1931. Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, ed. Carl J. Gerhardt. Leipzig: Alfred Lorentz.Google Scholar
  9. Maclaurin, Colin. 1748. An account or Sir Isaac Newton’s philosophical discoveries in four books. London: Patrick Murdoch.Google Scholar
  10. Newton, Isaac. 1999. The Principia, a new. Trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Petty, William. 1690. Political arithmetick. London: Robert Clavel.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Anstey, Peter R. 2005. Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In Science of Nature in the seventeenth century: Patterns of change in early modern natural philosophy, ed. Peter R. Anstey and J.A. Schuster The, 215–242. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biener, Zvi, and Eric Schliesser, eds. 2014. Newton and empiricism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Biener, Zvi, and Chris Smeenk. 2012. Cotes’ Queries: Newton’s empiricism and conceptions of matter. In Interpreting Newton, ed. Andrew Janiak and Eric Schliesser, 105–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boehm, Miren. 2013. Hume’s foundational project in the treatise. European Journal of Philosophy 24 (1: March): 55–77.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, I. Bernard. 1956. Franklin and Newton: An inquiry into speculative Newtonian experimental science and Franklin’s work in electricity as an example thereof. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
  6. Demeter, Tamás. “Hume’s experimental method.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20.3 (2012): 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Domski, Mary. 2012. Newton and proclus: Geometry, imagination, and knowing space. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3): 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ducheyne, Steffen. 2012. The main business of natural philosophy: Isaac Newton’s natural-philosophical methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2014a. ’s Gravesande’s appropriation of Newton’s natural philosophy, part I: Epistemological and theological issues. Centaurus 56 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. English, John C. 1999. John Hutchinson’s critique of newtonian heterodoxy. Church History 68: 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feingold, Mordechai. 2001. Mathematicians and naturalists: Sir Isaac Newton and the Royal Society. In Isaac Newton’s natural philosophy, ed. J.Z. Buchwald and I. Bernard Cohen, 77–102. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gallie, Roger D. 1989. Thomas Reid and “the way of ideas”. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrett, Don. 1997. Cognition and commitment in Hume’s philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Grabiner, Judith V. 2004, December. Newton, Maclaurin, and the authority of mathematics. American Mathematical Monthly 111 (10): 841–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hakfoort, Casper. 1982. Christian Wolff Tussen Cartesianen en Newtonianen. Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde, en Techniek 5 (1): 27–38.Google Scholar
  16. Harper, William L. 2012. Isaac Newton’s scientific method: Turning data into evidence about gravity and cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hazony, Yoram, and Eric Schliesser. 2016. Newton and Hume. In The Oxford handbook to David Hume, ed. Paul Russell, 673–707. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hoquet, Thierry. 2010. History without time: Buffon’s natural history as a nonmathematical physique. Isis 101 (1): 30–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurlbutt, Robert H. 1985. Hume, Newton, and the design argument. revised ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jalobeanu, Dana. 2013. Four idols of Baconian scholarship. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 71: 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jalobeanu, Dana. “Disciplining Experience: Francis Bacon’s Experimental Series and the Art of Experimenting.” Perspectives on Science 24.3 (2016): 324–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Janiak, Andrew. 2014. Newton’s philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. (Summer 2014 online edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/newton-philosophy.Google Scholar
  23. Meeker, Kevin. 2007. Hume on knowledge, certainty and probability: Anticipating the disintegration of the analytic/synthetic divide? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88: 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pastorino, Cesare. 2011. Weighing experience: Experimental histories and Francis Bacon’s quantitative program. Early Science and Medicine 16 (6): 542–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reill, Peter H. 2005. Vitalizing nature in the Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rocknak, Stefanie. 2012. Imagined causes: Hume’s conception of objects. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Russell, Patrick. 2008. The riddle of Hume’s Treatise: Skepticism, naturalism, and irreligion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schliesser, Eric. 2007. Two definitions of ‘cause’, Newton, and the significance of the Humean distinction between natural and philosophical relations. The Journal of Scottish Philosophy 5 (1): 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. 2011. Newton’s challenge to philosophy: A programmatic essay. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 1 (1): 101–128.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2012. The Newtonian Refutation of Spinoza: Newton’s challenge and the socratic problem. In Interpreting Newton: Critical essays, ed. Andrew Janiak and Eric Schliesser, 299–319. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2013. Philosophic prophecy. In Philosophy and its history: Aims and methods in the study of early modern philosophy, ed. Mogens Laerke et al., 209–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shank, John Bennett. 2008. The Newton Wars and the beginning of the French enlightenment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, Norman Kemp. 1941. The philosophy of David Hume. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, George E. 2001. Comments on Ernan McMullin’s ‘The impact of Newton’s Principia on the philosophy of science’. Philosophy of Science 68: 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2008. Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/newton-principia.Google Scholar
  36. Steinle, Friedrich. 2003. Experiments in history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science 10 (4): 408–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tarbuck, Derya Gürses. 2011. John Wesley’s critical engagement with Hutchinsonianism 1730–1780. History of European Ideas 37 (1): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wolfe, Charles T. 2010a. Empiricist heresies in early modern medical thought. In The body as object and instrument of knowledge: Embodied empiricism in early modern science, ed. Charles T. Wolfe and O. Gal, 333–344. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2010b. Rethinking empiricism and materialism: The revisionist view. Annales Philosophici, University of Oradea’s Annals of Philosophy 1 (1): 101–113.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations