David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 12 (3):262-287 (2004)
: Although Galileo's struggle to mathematize the study of nature is well known and oft discussed, less discussed is the form this struggle takes in relation to Galileo's first new science, the science of the second day of the Discorsi. This essay argues that Galileo's first science ought to be understood as the science of matter—not, as it is usually understood, the science of the strength of materials. This understanding sheds light on the convoluted structure of the Discorsi's first day. It suggests that the day's meandering discussions of the continuum, infinity, the vacuum, and condensation and rarefaction establish that a formal treatment of the "eternal and necessary" properties of matter is possible; i.e., that matter as such can be considered mathematically. This would have been a necessary, and indeed revolutionary, preliminary to the mathematical science of the second day because matter itself was thought in the Aristotelian tradition to be responsible for the departure of natural bodies from the unchanging and thus mathematizable character of abstract objects. In addition, the first day establishes that when considered physically, these properties account for matter's force of cohesion and resistance to fracture. This essay closes by showing that this dual style of reasoning accords with the conceptual structure of mixed mathematics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sven Dupré (2012). Kepler's Optics Without Hypotheses. Synthese 185 (3):501-525.
Renée Jennifer Raphael (2011). Making Sense of Day 1 of the Two New Sciences: Galileo's Aristotelian-Inspired Agenda and His Jesuit Readers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (4):479-491.
Similar books and articles
Jan Marten Ivo Klaver (2008). The Galileo Case: Trial/Science/Truth. By Mario d'Addiothe Church and Galileo. (Studies in Science and the Humanities From the Reilly Center for Science Technology and Values) Ed. By Ernan mcmullinGalileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion. By Phil Dowe. [REVIEW] Heythrop Journal 49 (4):685–687.
Douglas Michael Jesseph (2004). Galileo, Hobbes, and the Book of Nature. Perspectives on Science 12 (2):191-211.
Maarten Van Dyck (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Thomas Anand Holden (2004). The Architecture of Matter: Galileo to Kant. Oxford University Press.
Maarten Dycvank (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Marta Fehér (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo'sDiscorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17-24.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1976). Galileo and the Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:130 - 139.
Marta Feh (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo's Discorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17 – 24.
Domenico Bertoloni Meli (2004). The Role of Numerical Tables in Galileo and Mersenne. Perspectives on Science 12 (2).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #51,049 of 1,101,604 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #23,394 of 1,101,604 )
How can I increase my downloads?