Boyle on science and the mechanical philosophy: A reply to Chalmers

Abstract
Robert Boyle thought that his scientific achievements in pneumatics and chemistry depended on, and thus provided support for, his mechanical philosophy. In a recent article in this journal, Alan Chalmers has challenged this view. This paper consists of a reply to Chalmers on two fronts. First it tries to specify precisely what 'the mechanical philosophy' meant for Boyle. Then it goes on to defend, against Chalmers, the view that Boyle's science does support his natural philosophy.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,365
External links
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
Alan Chalmers (1993). The Lack of Excellency of Boyle's Mechanical Philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24 (4):541-564.
Citations of this work BETA
Denis Walsh (2012). Mechanism and Purpose: A Case for Natural Teleology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 43 (1):173-181.
Alan F. Chalmers (2010). Boyle and the Origins of Modern Chemistry: Newman Tried in the Fire. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1):1-10.
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

11 ( #138,532 of 1,102,737 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #296,833 of 1,102,737 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.