Authors
Emily Davies
University of Birmingham
Abstract
I examine Popper’s claims about Newton’s use of induction in Principia with the actual contents of Principia and draw two conclusions. Firstly, in common with most other philosophers of his generation, it appears that Popper had very little acquaintance with the contents and methodological complexities of Principia beyond what was in the famous General Scholium. Secondly Popper’s ideas about induction were less sophisticated than those of Newton, who recognised that it did not provide logical proofs of the results obtained using it, because of the possibilities of later, contrary evidence. I also trace the historical background to commonplace misconceptions about Newton’s method.Author Keywords: Newton; Popper; Induction; Principia; Kepler’s laws
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/s0039-3681(03)00045-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,219
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

Opticks.Isaac Newton - 1704 - Dover Press.
Newton's Argument for Universal Gravitation.William Harper - 2002 - In I. Bernard Cohen & George E. Smith (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge University Press. pp. 174--201.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Argument(s) for Universal Gravitation.Steffen Ducheyne - 2006 - Foundations of Science 11 (4):419-447.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Absence of Contingency in the Newtonian Universe.James W. McAllister - 2004 - Foundations of Science 9 (2):191-210.
Newton and Darwin: Can This Marriage Be Saved?William M. Baum & Suzanne H. Mitchell - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):91-92.
Was Newtonian Cosmology Really Inconsistent?Peter Vickers - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40 (3):197-208.
Myth Upon Myth.Susan L. Hurley - 1996 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96 (1):253-260.
A Physical Model of Zeno's Dichotomy.Leonard Angel - 2001 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):347-358.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
46 ( #231,842 of 2,448,368 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #117,657 of 2,448,368 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes