David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:130 - 139 (1976)
In view of several accounts of Galileo (as an "anarchist", Aristotelian-Thomist, Platonist, empiricist, and apriorist), this paper argues that, though the continued vitality of these interpretations indicates the uniqueness of Galileo's place in the philosophy of science, the philosophical importance of each depends on denying the alternatives; then proposes a synthetic approach as a solution; identifies it as a tradition; discusses its best and latest example (Clavelin); accepts the essential point of his account of Galileo's method (the skillful combination of thought and observation); and defines the novelty of his contribution as the analysis from that point of view of new elements of Galileo's work. However, it is argued that Clavelin's account of Galileo's theory of method does not do justice to the complexity and wealth of Galileo's philosophical remarks, and hence a new approach is suggested such that the essential feature of Galileo's philosophy of science becomes his skillful combination of scientific practice and philosophical theorizing.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maarten Van Dyck (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Maarten Dycvank (2005). The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):864-875.
Steffen Ducheyne (2006). Galileo's Interventionist Notion of "Cause&Quot. Journal of the History of Ideas 67 (3):443-464.
Joseph C. Pitt (1988). Galileo, Rationality and Explanation. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):87-103.
Marta Fehér (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo'sDiscorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17-24.
Peter Slezak (2011). Review of Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs. [REVIEW] Science and Education 20 (1):71-81.
Marta Feh (1998). Patterns of Argumentation in Galileo's Discorsi. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):17 – 24.
J. Groot (2000). Aspects of Aristotelian Statics in Galileo's Dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (4):645-664.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (2002). Galileo as a 'Bad Theologian': A Formative Myth About Galileo's Trial. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):753-791.
Klaus Fischer (1992). Die Wissenschaftstheorie Galileis — Oder: Contra Feyerabend. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (1):165 - 197.
David Atkinson (2004). Galileo and Prior Philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 35 (1):115-136.
Maurice A. Finocchiaro (1988). The Louvain Lectures (Lectiones Lovanienses) of Bellarmine and the Autograph Copy of His 1616 Declaration to Galileo, And: The Galileo Affair: A Meeting of Faith and Science (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 26 (1):149-151.
Sj George V. Coyne (2013). Science Meets Biblical Exegesis in the Galileo Affair. Zygon 48 (1):221-229.
Douglas Michael Jesseph (2004). Galileo, Hobbes, and the Book of Nature. Perspectives on Science 12 (2):191-211.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads11 ( #142,081 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #304,017 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?