Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j5sqr Total loading time: 0.223 Render date: 2022-10-06T02:27:25.553Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

Starting with a discussion of what I call ‘Koyré's paradox of conceptual novelty’, I introduce the ideas of Damerow et al. on the establishment of classical mechanics in Galileo's work. I then argue that although their view on the nature of Galileo's conceptual innovation is convincing, it misses an essential element: Galileo's use of the experiments described in the first day of the Two New Sciences. I describe these experiments and analyze their function. Central to my analysis is the idea that Galileo's pendulum experiments serve to secure the reference of his theoretical models in actually occurring cases of free fall. In this way, Galileo's experiments constitute an essential part of the meaning of the new concepts of classical mechanics.

Type
Observation and Experiment
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author is Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research—Flanders.

References

Boumans, Marcel (2003), “How to Design Galilean Fall Experiments in Economics”, How to Design Galilean Fall Experiments in Economics 70:308329.Google Scholar
Clavelin, Maurice (1968), La philosophie naturelle de Galilée. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Damerow, Peter, Freudenthal, Gideon, McLaughlin, Peter, and Renn, Jürgen (2004), Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, Eduard J. (1924), Val en Worp. Een bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Mechanica van Aristoteles tot Newton. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre ([1906] 1914), La théorie physique: Son objet, sa structure, 2nd ed. Paris: Marcel Rivière & Cie.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo ([1638] 1954), Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Translated by Crew, Henry and Salvio, Alfonso de. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo (1960), On Motion and on Mechanics. Translated by Drabkin, I. E. and Drake, Stillman. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Alexander (2002), “The Pendulum Swings Again: A Mathematical Reassessment of Galileo’s Experiments with Inclined Planes”, The Pendulum Swings Again: A Mathematical Reassessment of Galileo’s Experiments with Inclined Planes 56:339361.Google Scholar
Hill, David K. (1988), “Dissecting Trajectories: Galileo’s Early Experiments on Projectile Motion and the Law of Fall”, Dissecting Trajectories: Galileo’s Early Experiments on Projectile Motion and the Law of Fall 79:646668.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre ([1939] 1966), Etudes galiléennes, 2nd ed. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre (1968), Metaphysics and Measurement. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. ([1962] 1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, Ronald (1976), “Galileo: Real Experiments and Didactic Demonstration”, Galileo: Real Experiments and Didactic Demonstration 67:398419.Google Scholar
Naylor, Ronald (1989), “Galileo’s Experimental Discourse”, in Gooding, David, Pinch, Trevor, and Schaffer, Simon (eds.), The Uses of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117134.Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew (1981), “The Hunting of the Quark”, The Hunting of the Quark 72:216236.Google Scholar
Renn, Jürgen, Damerow, Peter, and Rieger, Simone (2000), “Hunting the White Elephant: When and How Did Galileo Discover the Law of Fall?”, Hunting the White Elephant: When and How Did Galileo Discover the Law of Fall? 13:299419.Google Scholar
Sargent, Rose-Mary (1995), The Diffident Naturalist: Robert Boyle and the Philosophy of Experiment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich (1997), “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation”, Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation 64 (Proceedings): S65S74.Google Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. (1971), Force in Newton’s Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. London: MacDonald.Google Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *