Demonstrative induction, old and new evidence and the accuracy of the electrostatic inverse square law

Synthese 99 (1):23 - 58 (1994)

Ronald Laymon
Ohio State University
Maxwell claimed that the electrostatic inverse square law could be deduced from Cavendish's spherical condenser experiment. This is true only if the accuracy claims made by Cavendish and Maxwell are ignored, for both used the inverse square law as a premise in their analyses of experimental accuracy. By so doing, they assumed the very law the accuracy of which the Cavendish experiment was supposed to test. This paper attempts to make rational sense of this apparently circular procedure and to relate it to some variants of traditional problems concerning old and new evidence.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01064529
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,865
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Theory and Evidence.Clark Glymour - 1980 - Princeton University Press.
Novel Evidence and Severe Tests.Deborah G. Mayo - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (4):523-552.
Science and Certainty.John D. Norton - 1994 - Synthese 99 (1):3 - 22.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Experimentation and the Legitimacy of Idealization.Ronald Laymon - 1995 - Philosophical Studies 77 (2-3):353 - 375.
Emergence of Complementarity and the Baconian Roots of Niels Bohr's Method.Slobodan Perovic - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (3):162-173.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
44 ( #189,815 of 2,266,156 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #852,654 of 2,266,156 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature