Graduate studies at Western
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):271 – 293 (2007)
|Abstract||While many take Newton's argument for absolute space to be an inference to the best explanation, some argue that Newton is primarily concerned with the proper definition of true motion, rather than with independent existence of spatial points. To an extent the latter interpretation is correct. However, all prior interpretations are mistaken in thinking that 'absolute motion' is defined as motion with respect to absolute space. Newton is also using this notion to refer to the quantity of motion (momentum). This reading reveals a misunderstood argument for absolute space, according to which absolute space is necessary for a workable definition of momentum|
|Keywords||Philosophy of Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Toulmin (1959). Criticism in the History of Science: Newton on Absolute Space, Time, and Motion, II. Philosophical Review 68 (2):203-227.
Stephen Toulmin (1959). Criticism in the History of Science: Newton on Absolute Space, Time, and Motion, I. Philosophical Review 68 (1):1-29.
Mary Domski (2010). Newton's Empiricism and Metaphysics. Philosophy Compass 5 (7):525-534.
Nick Huggett, Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Robert Rynasiewicz, Newton's Views on Space, Time, and Motion. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Richard Arthur (1994). Space and Relativity in Newton and Leibniz. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1):219-240.
Graham Nerlich (2005). Can Parts of Space Move? On Paragraph Six of Newton's Scholium. Erkenntnis 62 (1):119--135.
Nick Huggett (2008). Why the Parts of Absolute Space Are Immobile. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):391-407.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads133 ( #4,420 of 740,442 )
Recent downloads (6 months)48 ( #1,303 of 740,442 )
How can I increase my downloads?