From late 1684 through mid-1685, Isaac Newton turned to developing and refining the conceptual foundations presupposed by his emerging physics. Analysis of his manuscripts from this period reveals that Newton’s understanding of the relativity of acceleration led him to seek a spatiotemporally invariant quantity of matter. He found two such quantities and then designed an experiment to discover their relationship. Interpreting the experiment, however, required distinguishing a new notion of force. Others have recognized the conceptual distinction between inertial and gravitational (...) mass. I show here that Newton clearly saw this distinction and that he provisionally established their equivalence. (shrink)

Historical contingency is commonly associated with unpredictability and outcome variability. As such, it can be seen as an undesirable aspect of experimental investigations. Many might agree that experimental methodologies that include enough control help to by-pass this problem and thereby make for more secure knowledge. Against this received view, we argue that, for at least some historically contingent processes, an over-emphasis on control might mislead by obscuring the very object of investigation or by preventing fruitful discoveries. In discussing cases from (...) evolutionary biology, developmental biology, and geochemistry/astrophysics, we show how investigating through approaches that don’t prioritize environmental control, while allowing for greater variability of outcomes, better respects the object/environment entanglement of these systems. Finally, we defend the idea that, despite the lower level of control, these types of experiments do not have a lower epistemic value than more highly controlled experiments. (shrink)

In an influential series of papers, Cleland (2001, 2002, 2011) argued that historical natural scientists employ a distinctive methodology—which exploits Lewis (1979)s asymmetry of over determination—that is capable of putting knowledge of the deep past on an epistemic par with experimental knowledge. Currie (2018) clarified the nature of the asymmetry claim and used it to argue for a more restricted form of optimism toward the historical sciences. This optimism is licensed by the evidential redundancy that the asymmetry of over determination (...) guarantees.In this chapter I show that the argument for the asymmetry of over determination is circular and the thesis is false. Over determination toward the past is smuggled in from the start by ruling out of consideration so-called backtracking counterfactuals. By banning backtracking counterfactuals, consideration is restricted to possible worlds in which the over determination thesis holds. But in the actual world, the present is compatible with many different histories. (shrink)