Being Charitable to Scientific Controversies: On the Demonstrativity of Newton’s Experimentum Crucis

The Monist 93 (4):640-656 (2010)

Authors
Tamas Demeter
Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Abstract
Current philosophical reflections on science have departed from mainstream history of science with respect to both methodology and conclusions. The article investigates how different approaches to reconstructing commitments can explain these differences and facilitate a mutual understanding and communication of these two perspectives on science. Translating the differences into problems pertaining to principles of charity, the paper offers a platform for clarification and resolution of the differences between the two perspectives. The outlined contextual approach occupies a middle ground between mainstream history and sociology of science, bracketing questions of rationality, and individual coherence-maximizing, rationality-centered approaches. It can satisfy those, who believe that science is an epistemically privileged endeavor, and its epistemic content should not be neglected when reconstructing the scientists’ positions. It can also satisfy those who hold that it is naive to believe that the immediate context, e.g. the challenges to a theory, the expectations of the author about his audience, etc., does not affect the position a scientist takes. Its theoretical considerations are exemplified with a close study of the debate following the 1672 publication of Newton's theory of light and colours, also offering a novel reading of the development of his methodological views concerning the demonstrativity of the famous crucial experiment. Although we only show the capacity of the framework to analyze a direct controversy, given that it is hard to think about any scientific text as detached from an argumentative context, this approach has the potential to be a general guide for interpretation.
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest  Philosophy of Mind  Philosophy of Science
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0026-9662
DOI monist201093436
Options
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
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Newton's Regulae Philosophandi.Zvi Biener - 2018 - In Chris Smeenk & Eric Schliesser (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Isaac Newton. Oxford University Press.
Newton for Philosophers.Tamás Demeter - 2014 - Metascience 23 (2):249-253.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Experimentum crucis , 109-125).Peter Brosche - 1987 - Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 10 (2):113-114.
Dualism And The Experimentum Crucis.Lorne Falkenstein - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (1):212-217.
The "Experimentum Crucis" in Locke's Doctrine of Abstraction.William L. Reese - 1960 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 21 (4):490-500.
The Structure of a Scientific Controversy: Hooke Versus Newton About Colors.Maurizio Mamiani - 2000 - In Peter K. Machamer, Marcello Pera & Aristeidēs Baltas (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press. pp. 143.
Underdetermination and Provability: A Reply to Olaf Müller.Timm Lampert - 2017 - British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (2):389-400.
Das Problem der ''œentscheidenden Experimente''.Walter Kaiser - 1986 - Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 9 (2):109-125.
Irrationalism Today.Joseph Agassi - 1982 - Dialectica 36 (2‐3):127-146.
Newton's 1672 Optical Controversies: A Study in the Grammar of Scientific Dissent.Zev Bechler - 1974 - In Yehuda Elkana & Samuel Sambursky (eds.), The Interaction Between Science and Philosophy. Atlantic Highlands, N.J., Humanities Press. pp. 115--142.
On the Cognitive Analysis o F Scientific Controversies.Richard E. Grandy - 2000 - In Peter K. Machamer, Marcello Pera & Aristeidēs Baltas (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press. pp. 67.
Scientific Controversies: An Introduction.P. Machamer, M. Pera & A. Baltas - 2000 - In Peter K. Machamer, Marcello Pera & Aristeidēs Baltas (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Philosophical and Historical Perspectives. Oxford University Press. pp. 3--17.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-03-31

Total views
127 ( #61,146 of 2,266,145 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #598,676 of 2,266,145 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature