Nature's drawing: problems and resolutions in the mathematization of motion
Synthese 185 (3):429-466 (2012)
| Abstract | The mathematical nature of modern science is an outcome of a contingent historical process, whose most critical stages occurred in the seventeenth century. ‘The mathematization of nature’ (Koyré 1957 , From the closed world to the infinite universe , 5) is commonly hailed as the great achievement of the ‘scientific revolution’, but for the agents affecting this development it was not a clear insight into the structure of the universe or into the proper way of studying it. Rather, it was a deliberate project of great intellectual promise, but fraught with excruciating technical challenges and unsettling epistemological conundrums. These required a radical change in the relations between mathematics, order and physical phenomena and the development of new practices of tracing and analyzing motion. This essay presents a series of discrete moments in this process. For mediaeval and Renaissance philosophers, mathematicians and painters, physical motion was the paradigm of change, hence of disorder, and ipso facto available to mathematical analysis only as idealized abstraction. Kepler and Galileo boldly reverted the traditional presumptions: for them, mathematical harmonies were embedded in creation; motion was the carrier of order; and the objects of mathematics were mathematical curves drawn by nature itself. Mathematics could thus be assigned an explanatory role in natural philosophy, capturing a new metaphysical entity: pure motion. Successive generations of natural philosophers from Descartes to Huygens and Hooke gradually relegated the need to legitimize the application of mathematics to natural phenomena and the blurring of natural and artificial this application relied on. Newton finally erased the distinction between nature’s and artificial mathematics altogether, equating all of geometry with mechanical practice. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid Sepkoski (2007). Nominalism and Constructivism in Seventeenth-Century Mathematical Philosophy. Routledge.
Carlo Cellucci (2013). Philosophy of Mathematics: Making a Fresh Start. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):32-42.
John A. Schuster (2012). Physico-Mathematics and the Search for Causes in Descartes' Optics—1619–1637. Synthese 185 (3):467-499.
Jean De Groot (2006). A Husserlian Perspective on Empirical Mathematics in Aristotle. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 80:91-99.
Edward Grant (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Friedman (2012). Newton and Kant: Quantity of Matter in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (3):482-503.
Struan Jacobs (1994). Laws of Nature, Corpuscules, and Concourse. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:373-393.
Christoph Hoerl (2012). Seeing Motion and Apparent Motion. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1).
Margaret Catherine Morrison (2006). Scientific Understanding and Mathematical Abstraction. Philosophia 34 (3):337-353.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-11-22Total downloads13 ( #89,098 of 556,895 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,931 of 556,895 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
