Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T18:57:49.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geometry, Time and Force in the Diagrams of Descartes, Galileo, Torricelli and Newton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Emily R. Grosholz
Emily R. Grosholz*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mathematics plays a central role in the description, explanation and manipulation of natural phenomena. To what extent, and how and why mathematics applies to nature is a problem that has long occupied philosophers. Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Mach and Poincaré, to mention some of the most distinguished names, offer global solutions to this problem that are based on deep-lying metaphysical assumptions. In this essay, I would like to suggest an alternative approach, which is piecemeal rather than global, and historical before it is metaphysical.

I want to propose, first, that the question of applied mathematics be recast as a question about how mathematics and physics, a physics “always already” mathematized, are partially unified at various points in history, in such a way that they can share certain items, problems and methods while nonetheless remaining quite distinct. And, second, I suggest that these unifications may be quite heterogeneous and variable over time.

Type
Part VIII. Descartes
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 237 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by 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.)

References

Adam, C. and Tannery, P. (eds.) (1964/74), Oeuvres de Descartes. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Bos, Henk (1981), “On the Representation of Curves in Descartes’ Géométrie”, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 24: 295–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crew, H. and deSalvio, A. (eds.) (1954), Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
DeGandt, F. (forthcoming), “L'analyse de la percussion chez Galilée et Torricelli”.Google Scholar
Gabbey, A. (forthcoming), “Descartes’ Physics and Descartes’ Mechanics: Chicken and Egg?”.Google Scholar
Grosholz, E. (1982), “Leibniz’ Unification of Geometry with Algebra and Dynamics”, Studia Leibnitiana Sonderheft 13: 198–208.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1939), Etudes Galiléennes: La loi de la chute des corps. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Miller, V.R. and Miller, R.P. (eds.) (1983/4), Principles of Philosophy. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Motte, A. and Cajori, F. (eds.) (1934), Principia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D.E. and Latham, M.L. (eds.) (1954), The Geometry of René Descartes. New York: Dover.Google Scholar