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 1990:209 - 222 (1990)
This paper examines Newton's argument from the phenomena to the law of universal gravitation-especially the question how such a result could have been obtained from the evidential base on which that argument rests. Its thesis is that the crucial step was a certain application of the third law of motion-one that could only be justified by appeal to the consequences of the resulting theory; and that the general concept of interaction embodied in Newton's use of the third law most probably evolved in the course of the very investigation that led to this theory.
|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
Quayshawn Spencer (2013). Biological Theory and the Metaphysics of Race: A Reply to Kaplan and Winther. [REVIEW] Biological Theory 8 (1):114-120.
Steffen Ducheyne (2009). Understanding (in) Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 40 (2):227 - 258.
William L. Harper, Kent W. Staley, Henk W. de Regt & Peter Achinstein (2014). Objective Evidence and Rules of Strategy: Achinstein on Method. Metascience 23 (3):413-442.
Chris Smeenk (2005). Book Review. [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 36 (1):194-199.
Similar books and articles
Scott Tanona (2000). The Anticipation of Necessity: Kant on Kepler's Laws and Universal Gravitation. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):421-443.
William Harper (1990). Newton's Classic Deductions From Phenomena. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:183 - 196.
J. Worrall (2000). The Scope, Limits, and Distinctiveness of the Method of 'Deduction From the Phenomena': Some Lessons From Newton's 'Demonstrations' in Optics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (1):45-80.
Anja Jauernig (2008). Leibniz on Motion and the Equivalence of Hypotheses. The Leibniz Review 18:1-40.
Thomas Bonk (1997). Newtonian Gravity, Quantum Discontinuity and the Determination of Theory by Evidence. Synthese 112 (1):53-73.
Margaret Morrison (1992). Some Complexities of Experimental Evidence. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:49 - 62.
J. Earman & M. Friedman (1973). The Meaning and Status of Newton's Law of Inertia and the Nature of Gravitational Forces. Philosophy of Science 40 (3):329-359.
John R. Pani (2001). The Mathematics of Symmetry Does Not Provide an Appropriate Model for the Human Understanding of Elementary Motions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (4):696-697.
Steffen Ducheyne (2006). The Argument(s) for Universal Gravitation. Foundations of Science 11 (4):419-447.
Pierre Kerszberg (2013). Deduction Versus Discourse: Newton and the Cosmic Phenomena. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 18 (3):529-544.
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 J. McLaughlin (2008). Nature and Inertia. Review of Metaphysics 62 (2):251-284.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads21 ( #135,014 of 1,725,444 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,436 of 1,725,444 )
How can I increase my downloads?