Advertisement

De Volder’s Cartesian Physics and Experimental Pedagogy

  • Tammy NydenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 31)

Abstract

In 1675, Burchard de Volder (1643–1709) was the first professor to introduce the demonstration of experiment into a university physics course and built the Leiden Physics Theatre to accommodate this new pedagogy. When he requested the funds from the university to build the facility, he claimed that the performance of experiments would demonstrate the “truth and certainty” of the postulates of theoretical physics. Such a claim is interesting given de Volder’s lifelong commitment to Cartesian scientia. This chapter will examine de Volder’s views on experiment and show that they are not Newtonian or inductivist, as is sometimes claimed. While de Volder thinks we need deductive reasoning from first principles to provide evidence of the certainty of the content of our physical theories, he also contends that we need experiment to provide evidence of the certainty of the existence of the particular bodies those theories discuss. This approach to experiment is based on a distinction between rational certainty and the certainty of material bodies in the actual world. While this account is deeply influenced by Descartes, it is importantly different than Descartes’ distinction between absolute and moral certainty. De Volder’s “Cartesian Empiricism” is best understood as a continuation and further development of a long tradition of teaching through observation at Leiden.

Keywords

Seventeenth Century Scientific Equipment Mathematical Deduction Philosophy Faculty Rational Certainty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported with an American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship, an American Philosophical Society Franklin Research Grant, an Obermann Center Fellowship at the University of Iowa and research support from Grinnell College. I would like to thank Mihnea Dobre, Paul Lodge, Gary Hatfield, and Sujeev Wickramasekara for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Ahnert, Thomas. 2002. The culture of experimentalism in the Holy Roman Empire: Johann Christoph Sturm (1635–1703) and the Collegium Experimentale. Sammelpunkt Elektronisch archivierte Theorie. http://sammelpunkt.philo.at:8080/308/. Accessed 14 Apr 2010.
  2. Ariew, Roger. 2011. The new matter theory and its epistemology: Descartes (and late scholastics) on hypothesis and moral certainty. In Vanishing matter and the laws of motion: Descartes and beyond, ed. Dana Jalobeanu and Peter R. Anstey, 31–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Boas Hall, Marie. 1966. Robert Boyle on natural philosophy. An essay with selections from his writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bos, E.P., and H.A. Krop (eds.). 1993. Franco Burgersdijk (1590–1635): Neo-Aristotelianism in Leiden. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  5. Cardoso, Adelino. 1996. Mathesis Leibniziana. Philosophica: Revista do Departamento de Filosofia da Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa 8: 51–77.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, Harold J. 1992. The new philosophy in the low countries. In The scientific revolution in national context, ed. Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich, 115–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, Harold J. 2007. Matters of exchange: Commerce, medicine, and science in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Crommelin, Claude August. 1926. Physics and the art of instrument making at Leyden in the 17th and 18th centuries. Leiden: A.W. Sijtoff.Google Scholar
  9. Crommelin, Claude August. 1935. Die Holländische Physic Im 18 Jahrhundert Mit Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Entwicklung Der Feinmechanik. Für Geschichte der Medizin und der naturwissenschaften 28(3): 129–142.Google Scholar
  10. Crommelin, Claude August. 1951. Descriptive catalogue of the physical instruments of the 18th century (including the collection ‘S Gravesande-Musschenbroek) in the Rijksmuseum Voor De Geschiedenis Der Natuurwetenschappen. Leiden: National Museum of the History of Science at Leiden.Google Scholar
  11. Daumas, Maurice. 1972. Scientific instruments of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Trans. and ed. Mary Holbrook. New York: Praeger Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. De Clercq, Peter. 1988. The ‘S Gravesande Collection in the Museum Boerhaave, Leiden. Nuncius/Istituto Museo Di Storia Della Scienza Firenze: Nuncius: Annali di Storia della Sceinza Anno III: 127–137.Google Scholar
  13. De Clercq, Peter. 1989. The Leiden Cabinet of Physics. Leiden: Museum Boerhaave.Google Scholar
  14. De Clercq, Peter. 1997a. At the sign of the oriental lamp: The Musschenbroek workshop in Leiden, 1660–1750. Rotterdam: Erasmus Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. De Clercq, Peter. 1997b. The Leiden Cabinet of Physics: A descriptive catalogue. Leiden: Museum Boerhaave.Google Scholar
  16. de Volder, Buchard. 1664. Disputatio Medica, Inauguralis de Natura. Leiden: Severinum Mattiae.Google Scholar
  17. de Volder, Burchard. 1679. Oratio Funebris in Obitum Consultissimi Viri Siberti Coeman, Philosophiae & U. Juris Doctoris, hujusque in Acad. Lugduno Batava Professoris. Leiden.Google Scholar
  18. de Volder, Burchard. 1681a. Disputationes Philosophicae Sive Cogitations Rationales de Rerum Naturalium Principiis. Middelburg: Remigii Schreverii.Google Scholar
  19. de Volder, Burchard. 1681b. Quastiones Academicae De Aëris Gravitate. Middelburg: Remigii Schreverii.Google Scholar
  20. de Volder, Burchard. 1682. Oratio de Conjugendis Philosophicis et Mathematicis Disciplinis. Leiden: Apud Jacobum Voorn.Google Scholar
  21. de Volder, Burchard. 1698. Oratio de Rationis Viribus, Et Usu in Scientiis. Leiden: Fridericum Haringium.Google Scholar
  22. de Volder, Burchard. 1705. Oratio Qua Consentientibus Illistr. Acad. Curatoribus, Urbisque Leidensis Coss. Sese Laboribus Academicis Abdicavit. Habita. Leiden: Cornelium Boutestein.Google Scholar
  23. [de Volder, Burchard, Christoph Wittichius] and Adriaan Heidanus. 1676. Consideratien, over Eenige saecken onlanghs voorgevallen in de Universiteyt binnen Leyden. Den Derden Druck is achter by-gevoegt een Extract uyt de Resolutie van de Curateuren over de un iversiteyt en Burgermeesteren de Stadt Leyden. Leiden: Aernoudt Doude.Google Scholar
  24. Descartes, René. 1970. Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Charles Adam and Paul Tannery. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  25. Descartes, René. 1985. Principles of philosophy. In The philosophical writings of Descartes, vol. I. Trans. John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch, 177–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dobre, Mihnea. 2013. Knowledge and certainty in the foundation of Cartesian natural philosophy. Revue Roumaine de Philosophie 57(1): 95–110.Google Scholar
  27. Gori, Giambattista. 1972. La Fondazione Dell ‘Esperienza in ‘S Gravesande. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice.Google Scholar
  28. Gronovio, Jacobo. 1709. Laudatio Burcheri de Volder Philosophiae & Matheseos Professoris LAUDATIO ab Jacobo Gronovio Peracta Ex decreto Rectoris Magnifici & Senatus Academemici. Leiden: Cornelium Boutestein.Google Scholar
  29. Heilbron, J.L. 1982. Elements of early modern physics. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jalobeanu, Dana (ed.). 2013. The creative role of experimentation in early modern science. Special Issue of the Journal of Early Modern Studies 2(1).Google Scholar
  31. Jesseph, Douglas Michael. 1998. Leibniz on the foundations of the calculus: The question of the reality of infinitesimal magnitudes. Perspectives on Science 6(1): 6–40.Google Scholar
  32. Kegal-Brinkgreve, E., and A.M. Luyendijk-Elshout. 1983. Introduction. In Boerhaave’s orations. Trans. E. Kegal-Brinkgreve and A.M. Luyendijk-Elshout. Leiden: Brill and Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Klein, Ursula. 2003. Experimental history and Herman Boerhaave’s chemistry of plants. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34(4): 533–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klever, Wim. 1988. Burchard De Volder (1643–1709)–a Cryptospinozist on a Leiden Cathredra. LIAS 15(2): 191–241.Google Scholar
  35. Klever, Wim. 1997. Mannen rond Spinoza. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren.Google Scholar
  36. Knoeff, Rina. 2002. Herman Boerhaave: Spinozist? In Herman Boerhaave (1668–1738): Calvinist chemist and physician, ed. R. Knoeff, 21–51. Amsterdam: KNAW (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen).Google Scholar
  37. Krop, Henri. 2003. Medicine and philosophy in Leiden around 1700: Continuity or rupture? In The early enlightenment in the Dutch republic, ed. Wiep van Bunge, 173–196. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  38. Le Clerc, Jean. 1709. Eloge de feu Mr. De Volder Professeur en Philosophie & aux Mathématiques, dans l’acadmémie de Leide. Bibliothèque Choisie 18: 346–401.Google Scholar
  39. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 2013. The Leibniz-De Volder correspondence: With selections from the correspondence between Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli, ed. and trans. Paul Lodge. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Leomker, Leroy E. 1946. Leibniz’s judgments of fact. Journal of the History of Ideas 7(4): 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindeboom, Gerrit Arie. 1972. Burchard De Volder. In Mensen Om Boerhaave. The Hague: Geneeskundige gids.Google Scholar
  42. Lindeboom, Gerrit Arie. 1974. Boerhaave and Great Britain. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  43. Lodge, Paul. 1998. The failure of Leibniz’s correspondence with De Volder. Leibniz Society Review 8: 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lodge, Paul. 2001. The debate over extended substance in Leibniz’s correspondence with De Volder. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15(2): 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lodge, Paul. 2004. Leibniz’s close encounter with Cartesianism in the correspondence with De Volder. In Leibniz and his correspondents, ed. Paul Lodge, 162–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lodge, Paul. 2005. Burchard De Volder: Crypto-Spinozist or Disenchanted Cartesian? In Receptions of Descartes: Cartesianism and anti-Cartesianism in early modern Europe, ed. Tad M. Schmaltz, 128–145. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McGahagan, T.A. 1976. Cartesianism in The Netherlands, 1639–1676. The new science and the Calvinist reformation. Unpublished PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  48. Molhuysen, P.C. 1918. Bronnen Tot De Geschiednis Van De Leidsche Universteit. ‘Sgravenhage, 1913–1924, vol. III. ‘s Gravenhage: Marinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  49. Newton, Isaac. 1982. Further Newton correspondence. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 37(1): 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Niceron, Jean Pierre. 1733. Mémoires pour servir á l’histoire des hommes illustres dans la République des Lettres. Avec un catalogue raisonné de leurs ouvrages, vol. XXII. Paris: Briasson.Google Scholar
  51. Nyden, Tammy. In press. Living force at Leiden: De Volder, ‘s Gravesande, and the reception of Newtonianism. In Newton and Empiricism, ed. Zvi Biener and Eric Schliesser. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Nyden-Bullock, Tammy. 1999. Radical Cartesian politics: Van Velthuysen, De La Court, and Spinoza. Studia Spinozana 15: 35–65.Google Scholar
  53. Nyden-Bullock, Tammy. 2007. Spinoza’s radical Cartesian mind. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  54. Orr, Robert R. 1967. Reason and authority: The thought of William Chillingworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  55. Otterspeer, Willem. 2001. The University of Leiden: An eclectic institution. Early Science and Medicine 6(4): 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Otterspeer, Willem. 2008. The bastion of liberty: Leiden University today and yesterday. Leiden: Leiden University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Remer, Gary. 1992. Humanism, liberalism, & the skeptical case for religious toleration. Polity 25(1): 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rey, Anne-Lise. 2009a. L’ambivalence de la notion d’action dans la dynamique de Leibniz: La correspondance entre Leibniz et de Volder. Première partie. Studia Leibnitiana: Zeitschrift Fuer Geschichte Der Philosophie Und Der Wissenschaften 41(1): 47–66.Google Scholar
  59. Rey, Anne-Lise. 2009b. L’ambivalence de la notion d’action dans la Dynamique de Leibniz: La correspondance entre Leibniz et De Volder. IIe Partie. Studia Leibnitiana: Zeitschrift fuer Geschichte der Philosophie und der Wissenschaften 41(2): 157–182.Google Scholar
  60. Ross, George. 1986. Leibniz and de Volder on the infinitely small in metaphysics. Studia Liebnitiana. Supplemata: im Austrage der Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz-Gesellschaft E.V 14: 169–177.Google Scholar
  61. Ruestow, Edward G. 1973. Physics at seventeenth and eighteenth-century Leiden: Philosophy and the new science in the University. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sassen, F.L.R. 1970. The intellectual climate in Leiden in Boerhaave’s time. In Boerhaave and his time (Analecta Boerhaaviana VI), ed. G.A. Lindeboom, 1–16. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  63. Schuurman, Paul. 2004. Ideas, mental faculties and method: The logic of ideas of Descartes and Locke and its reception in the Dutch Republic, 1630–1750. Leiden/Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  64. Siegenbeek, Matthijs. 1832. Geschiedenis der Leidsche Hoogeschool, van Hare Oprigting, in den Jare 1575, tot het Jaar 1825, vol. II. Leiden: J. Luchtmans.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, Pamela. 2004. The body of the Artisan: Art and experience in the scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spaans, Jo. 2007. The Alphen pig war. In Iconoclasm and Iconoclash: Struggle for religious identity, ed. Willem van Asselt, Paul van Geest, Daniela Müller, and Theo Salemink, 331–352. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Suringer, G.C.B. 1865. De Leidsche Hoogleraren in De Natuurkundige Wetenschappenn… Ned. Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde 2nd Ser. I:275–306.Google Scholar
  68. Thijssen-Schoute, C. Louise. 1954. Nederlands Cartesianism. Amsterdam: Verh. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch.Google Scholar
  69. Turner, G.L.E. 1998. Scientific instruments: 1500–1900, an introduction. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  70. van Berkel, Klaas. 1985. In Het Voetspoor Van Stevin: Geschiedenis Van De Natuurwetenschap in Nederland 1580–1940. Amsterdam: Boom Meppel.Google Scholar
  71. van Berkel, Klaas, Albert van Helden, and Lodewijk Palm (eds.). 1999. A history of science in the Netherlands: Surveys, themes and reference. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  72. Van Bunge, Wiep. 2001. From Stevin to Spinoza: An essay on philosophy in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  73. van Leeuwen, Henry G. 1963. The problem of certainty in English thought 1630–1690. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  74. van Poelgeest, L. 1984. De Wis–En Naturrkundesfaculteit, De Leidse Hoggleraren En Lectoren 1575–1815, vol. IV. Leiden: Werkgroep Elites Rijksuniversiteit.Google Scholar
  75. Van Miert, Dirk. 2003. Bie, Alexander de (1623–1690). In The dictionary of seventeenth and eighteenth-century Dutch philosophers, ed. Wiep van Bunge, Henri Krop, Bart Leeuwenburgh, Han van Ruler, Paul Schuurman, and Michael Wielema, I:102–103. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
  76. Van Miert, Dirk. 2009. Humanism in an age of science: The Amsterdam Athenauem in the Golden Age, 16321704, Trans. Michiel Wielema and Anthony Ossa-Richardson. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  77. Vermij, Rienk. 2003. The formation of the Newtonian philosophy: The case of the Amsterdam mathematical Amateurs. British Journal for the History of Science 36(2): 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vinson, Carolus. 1676–1677. Experimenta Anatomica et Philosophica. Manuscript. Sloane Collection 1676–1677, The British Library.Google Scholar
  79. Wiesenfeldt, Gerhard. 2000. The virtues of new philosophies or: How the Leiden philosophical faculty survived the crises of 1676. In 19th International Congress of Historical Sciences Oslo, Norway. http://www.oslo2000.uio.no/AIO/AIO16/group%203/Wiesenfeldt.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2012.
  80. Wiesenfeldt, Gerhard. 2002. Leerer Raum in Minervas Haus: Experimentelle Naturlehre an der Universität Leiden, 1675–1715. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science.Google Scholar
  81. Wiesenfeldt, Gerhard. 2003. Senguerd, Wolferd (1646–1724). In The dictionary of seventeenth and eighteenth-century Dutch philosophers, vol. II, ed. Wiep van Bunge, Henri Krop, Bart Leeuwenburgh, Han van Ruler, Paul Schuurman, and Michael Wielema, 911–914. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGrinnell CollegeGrinnellUSA

Personalised recommendations