Boyle on seminal principles
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):597-630 (2002)
This paper presents a comprehensive study of Robert Boyle's writings on seminal principles or seeds. It examines the role of seeds in Boyle's account of creation, the generation of plants and animals, spontaneous generation, the generation of minerals and disease. By an examination of all of Boyle's major extant discussions of seeds it is argued that there were discernible changes in Boyle's views over time. As the years progressed Boyle became more sceptical about the role of seminal principles in the generation of minerals and he came to reject the spontaneous generation of insects and animals from putrefying matter. It is also argued that Boyle's notion of a generative or 'plastick' principle creates a tension within his mechanical philosophy. He appeals to a plastick power in order to explain those phenomena of generation that are beyond the explanatory resources of the corpuscular hypothesis. However, when pressed to explain the nature of this power he either hints, somewhat paradoxically, that it too can be explained mechanically or admits his nescience
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Deborah Boyle (2006). Spontaneous and Sexual Generation in Conway's Principles. In Justin E. H. Smith (ed.), The Problem of Animal Generation in Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press
Laurence Carlin (2011). The Importance of Teleology to Boyle's Natural Philosophy. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (4):665 - 682.
A. Pyle (2002). Boyle on Science and the Mechanical Philosophy: A Reply to Chalmers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):171-186.
Simon B. Duffy (2006). The Difference Between Science and Philosophy: The Spinoza-Boyle Controversy Revisited. Paragraph 29 (2):115-138.
R. P. (2002). Robert Boyle and the Heuristic Value of Mechanism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):157-170.
Peter R. Anstey (2002). Boyle on Seminal Principles. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):597-630.
J. J. MacIntosh (1992). Robert Boyle's Epistemology: The Interaction Between Scientific and Religious Knowledge. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):91 – 121.
Jan-Erik Jones (2005). Boyle, Classification and the Workmanship of the Understanding Thesis. Journal of the History of Philosophy 43 (2):171-183.
Rose‐Mary Sargent (2004). Robert Boyle and the Masculine Methods of Science. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):857-867.
Rose-Mary Sargent (2004). Robert Boyle and the Masculine Methods of Science. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):857-867.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #263,928 of 1,911,506 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,144 of 1,911,506 )
How can I increase my downloads?