Demonstrative induction, old and new evidence and the accuracy of the electrostatic inverse square law
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 99 (1):23 - 58 (1994)
Maxwell claimed that the electrostatic inverse square law could be deduced from Cavendish's spherical condenser experiment. This is true only if the accuracy claims made by Cavendish and Maxwell are ignored, for both used the inverse square law as a premise in their analyses of experimental accuracy. By so doing, they assumed the very law the accuracy of which the Cavendish experiment was supposed to test. This paper attempts to make rational sense of this apparently circular procedure and to relate it to some variants of traditional problems concerning old and new evidence.
|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
L. Laudan (1977). Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press.
Clark Glymour (1980). Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press.
Deborah G. Mayo (1991). Novel Evidence and Severe Tests. Philosophy of Science 58 (4):523-552.
Jon Dorling (1973). Demonstrative Induction: Its Significant Role in the History of Physics. Philosophy of Science 40 (3):360-372.
John D. Norton (1993). The Determination of Theory by Evidence: The Case for Quantum Discontinuity, 1900–1915. Synthese 97 (1):1 - 31.
Citations of this work BETA
Ronald Laymon (1995). Experimentation and the Legitimacy of Idealization. Philosophical Studies 77 (2-3):353 - 375.
Slobodan Perovic (2013). Emergence of Complementarity and the Baconian Roots of Niels Bohr's Method. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 44 (3):162-173.
Similar books and articles
Michela Massimi (2004). What Demonstrative Induction Can Do Against the Threat of Underdetermination: Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli on Spectroscopic Anomalies (1921–24). Synthese 140 (3):243-277.
Alex Stein (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Craig Kunimoto, Jeff G. Miller & Harold Pashler (2001). Confidence and Accuracy of Near-Threshold Discrimination Responses. Consciousness and Cognition 10 (3):294-340.
Simon A. Cole, Toward Evidence-Based Evidence: Supporting Forensic Knowledge Claims in the Post-Daubert Era.
Wayne C. Myrvold & William L. Harper (2002). Model Selection, Simplicity, and Scientific Inference. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S135-S149.
Thomas Bonk (1997). Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Discontinuity and the Determination of Theory by Evidence. Synthese 112 (1):53-73.
Jon Dorling (1974). Henry Cavendish's Deduction of the Electrostatic Inverse Square Law From the Result of a Single Experiment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 4 (4):327-348.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #175,574 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #183,615 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?