David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (4):763-780 (2003)
I examine Popper’s claims about Newton’s use of induction in Principia with the actual contents of Principia and draw two conclusions. Firstly, in common with most other philosophers of his generation, it appears that Popper had very little acquaintance with the contents and methodological complexities of Principia beyond what was in the famous General Scholium. Secondly Popper’s ideas about induction were less sophisticated than those of Newton, who recognised that it did not provide logical proofs of the results obtained using it, because of the possibilities of later, contrary evidence. I also trace the historical background to commonplace misconceptions about Newton’s method.Author Keywords: Newton; Popper; Induction; Principia; Kepler’s laws
|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
William Harper (2002). Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation. In I. Bernard Cohen & George E. Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge University Press 174--201.
Isaac Newton (1704/1952). Opticks. Dover Press.
J. Worrall (2000). The Scope, Limits, and Distinctiveness of the Method of 'Deduction From the Phenomena': Some Lessons From Newton's 'Demonstrations' in Optics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1):45-80.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jessica Wilson (2007). Newtonian Forces. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (2):173 - 205.
James W. McAllister (2004). Absence of Contingency in the Newtonian Universe. Foundations of Science 9 (2):191-210.
David Michael Levin (1982). Sanity and Myth in Affective Space: A Discussion of Merleau-Ponty. Phil Forum (Boston) 14 (2):157-189.
James W. Mcallister (1999). Universal Regularities and Initial Conditions in Newtonian Physics. Synthese 120 (3):325-343.
William M. Baum & Suzanne H. Mitchell (2000). Newton and Darwin: Can This Marriage Be Saved? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):91-92.
Robert N. Brandon (2010). A Non-Newtonian Newtonian Model of Evolution: The ZFEL View. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):702-715.
Peter John Vickers (2009). Was Newtonian Cosmology Really Inconsistent? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 40 (3):197-208.
Lawrence Sklar (2012). Philosophy and the Foundations of Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
Susan L. Hurley (1996). Myth Upon Myth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96:253-260.
Leonard Angel (2001). A Physical Model of Zeno's Dichotomy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):347-358.
Ursula Renz (2011). From Philosophy to Criticism of Myth: Cassirer's Concept of Myth. Synthese 179 (1):135 - 152.
W. Joseph Campbell (2010). Getting It Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism. University of California Press.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads3 ( #461,642 of 1,724,906 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,164 of 1,724,906 )
How can I increase my downloads?