Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 12 (2):395-446 (2022)
AbstractDescartes’s most extensive discussion of the law of refraction and the shape of the anaclastic lens is contained in Rule 8 of "Rules for the Direction of the Mind". Few reconstructions of Descartes’s discovery of the law of refraction take Rule 8 as their basis. In Rule 8, Descartes denies that the law of refraction can be discovered by purely mathematical means, and he requires that the law of refraction be deduced from physical principles about natural power or force, the nature of the action of light, and the behavior of light rays in a variety of transparent media. For over a century, however, there has been broad agreement that Descartes discovered the law of refraction by purely mathematical means, and that he only later provided the relevant physical rationale (via comparisons or analogies) in Dioptrics II. I execute each step in Descartes’s proposed deduction of the law of refraction and the shape of the anaclastic lens in Rule 8 and concretely show how Descartes could have discovered the law of refraction and the shape of the anaclastic by its means. Rule 8, I argue, reflects Descartes’s actual path to the discovery of the law of refraction and the shape of the anaclastic lens.
Similar books and articles
The Harvest of Optics: Descartes, Mydorge, and their paths to a theory of refraction.Robert Goulding - 2022 - Annals of Science 79 (2):164-214.
Descartes's Theory of Light and Refraction a Discourse on Method.A. Mark Smith - 1987 - Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Descartes's diagonal deduction.Peter Slezak - 1983 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (March):13-36.
Descartes' Cogito: Saved From the Great Shipwreck.Husain Sarkar - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
On Quine's Approach to Natural Deduction'.Carlo Cellucci - 1995 - In Paolo Leonardi & Marco Santambrogio (eds.), On Quine: New Essays. Cambridge University Press. pp. 314--335.
Was Descartes's cogito a diagonal deduction?Roy A. Sorensen - 1986 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (3):346-351.
Reflecting rules: A note on generalizing the deduction theorem.Gillman Payette - 2015 - Journal of Applied Logic 13 (3):188-196.
Kant's Transcendental Deduction and the Ghosts of Descartes and Hume.Corey W. Dyck - 2011 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (3):473-496.
Cogito, ergo sum : induction et déduction.Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer - 2004 - Archives de Philosophie 67 (1):51-63.
The Cause of Refraction in Medieval Optics.David C. Lindberg - 1968 - British Journal for the History of Science 4 (1):23-38.
Descartes 'Opticien': The construction of the law of refraction and the manufacture of its physical rationales, 1618–29. [REVIEW]John A. Schuster - 2000 - In John Schuster, Stephen Gaukroger & John Sutton (eds.), Descartes' Natural Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 258--312.
Memory and the Extension of Thinking in Descartes’s Regulae.Julie R. Klein - 2002 - International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (1):23-40.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Descartes’s Deduction of the Law of Refraction and the Shape of the Anaclastic Lens in Rule 8.Tarek R. Dika - 2022 - Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 12 (2):395-446.
References found in this work
The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.Pierre Duhem & Philip P. Wiener - 1955 - Science and Society 19 (1):85-87.
Why is there Philosophy of Mathematics AT ALL?Ian Hacking - 2011 - South African Journal of Philosophy 30 (1):1-15.
Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science. The Classical Origins — Descartes to Kant.Gerd Buchdahl - 1969 - Studia Leibnitiana 3 (3):224-227.