Newton’s methodology and the demonstration of the reality of the force

Authors

  • Sebastián Molina Betancur Universidad de Antioquia

Keywords:

force, rational mechanics, geometry, methodology, demonstration

Abstract


Some experts on Newton have argued that the methodology that he uses to demonstrate the existence of force is based on his mathematical approach to the phenomena of movement, which has come to be understood as a classical interpretation of the subject. However, if examined under the light of the interpretation given by authors like Guicciardini and Guerlac, this interpretation has many limitations. This article shows the limitations of the classical interpretation in light of this recent interpretation by exploring the methodological aspects of the demonstration of force.

|Abstract
= 127 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 32 veces| | HTML (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 172 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Sebastián Molina Betancur, Universidad de Antioquia

Grupo de Investigación Conocimiento, Filosofía, Ciencia, Historia y Sociedad, Instituto de Filosofía, Medellín, Colombia

References

Cohen, I. B. (1980). La revolución newtoniana y la transformación de las ideas científicas. Solís S., C. (Trad.). Madrid: Alianza.

__________ (1987). Newton’s third law and universal gravitation. Journal of the History of Ideas, 48 (4), pp. 571-593.

__________ (1999). A Guide to Newton’s Principia. En Newton, I. (1999). The Principia. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (pp. 1-370). Cohen, I. B. & Whitmann, A. (Trad.). Budenz, J. (Asis.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

__________ (2002). Newton’s concepts of force and mass, with notes on the Laws of motion. En Cohen, I. B. & Smith G. E. (Eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Newton (pp. 57-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, I. B. & Smith G. E. (Eds.). (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ducheyne, S. (2006). “The argument(s) for universal gravitation”. En Foundations of Science, Vol. 11, pp. 419-447.

__________ (2012). The Main Business of Natural Philosophy. Isaac Newton’s Natural Philosophical Methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.

Garrison, J. W. (1987). Newton and the relation of mathematics to natural philosophy. Journal of the History of Ideas, 48(4), pp. 609-627.

Guerlac, H. (1973). Newton and the method of analysis En Wiener, P. (Ed.). Dictionary of the history of ideas (pp. 378-391). Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner’s sons.

Guerlac, H. & M. C., Jacob. (1969). Bentley, Newton, and providence: The Boyle Lectures once more. Journal of the History of Ideas, 30(3), pp. 307-318.

Guicciardini, N. (1998). Did Newton use his calculus in the Principia? Centaurus, 40(3-4), pp. 303-344.

__________ (1999). Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s mathematical Methods of Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

__________ (2002). Analysis and synthesis in Newton’s mathematical work. En Cohen, I. B. & Smith, G. E. (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton (pp. 308-328) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harper, W. L. (2002). Newton’s argument for universal gravitation. En Cohen, I. B. & Smith, G. E. (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Newton (pp. 174-201) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

__________ (2011). Isaac Newton’s scientific method. Turning data into evidence about gravity and cosmology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Janiak, A. (2000) Space, atoms and mathematical divisibility in Newton. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31(2), pp. 203-230.

__________ (2004) Introduction to Newton: Philosophical Writings. En Newton, I. (2004) Newton: Philosophical Writings. Janiak, A. (Ed.) (2000), pp. ix-xxxi.

Janiak, A., Schliesser, E. (Eds.). (2012). Interpreting Newton. Critical Essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Koyré, A. (1965). Newtonian Studies. London: Chapman and Hall.

Newton, I. (1962). Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton. A Selection from the Portsmouth Collection in the University Library of Cambridge. Hall, A. R. & Hall, M. B. (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

__________ (1965a). De motu corporum in gyrum. En Herivel, J. (1965). The Background to Newton’s ‘Principia’. A Study of Newton’s Dynamical Researches in the Years 1664-1684. En Herivel, J. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

__________ (1965b). De motu Corporum in Mediis Regulariter Cedenbitus. MS. Add. 3965. En Herivel, J. The Background to Newton’s ‘Principia’. A Study of Newton’s Dynamical Researches in the Years 1664-1684. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

__________ (1977). Óptica o Tratado de las Reflexiones, Refracciones, Inflexiones y Colores de la Luz. Solís, C. (Trad.). Madrid: Alfaguara.

__________ (1987). Principios Matemáticos de la Filosofía Natural. Escohotado, A. (Trad.). Barcelona: Tecnos.

__________ (1999) The Principia. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Cohen, I. B. & Whitmann, A. (Trad.). Budenz, J. (Asis.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

__________ (2003). Opticks, or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, In flections, and Colours of Light. New York: Prometheus Books.

Spencer, Q. (2004). Do Newton’s rules of reasoning guarantee truth... must they? Studies of History and Philosophy of Science, 35, pp. 759-782.

Published

2014-11-01

How to Cite

Molina Betancur, S. (2014). Newton’s methodology and the demonstration of the reality of the force. Estudios De Filosofía, (50), 131–154. Retrieved from https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/estudios_de_filosofia/article/view/21142

Issue

Section

Original or Research articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.