Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:59:50.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“From the Phenomena of Motions to the Forces of Nature”: Hypothesis or Deduction?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Howard Stein
Howard Stein*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There is a passage in Hume’s Enquiry concerning Human Understanding that I have always found striking and rather charming. It concerns a metaphysical theory that Hume regards as bizarre; and he offers two philosophical arguments in its confutation. It is the first of these that I have in mind:

First, [he says,] It seems to me, that this theory… is too bold ever to carry conviction with it to a man, sufficiently apprized of the weakness of human reason, and the narrow limits, to which it is confined in all its operations. Though the chain of arguments, which conduct to it, were ever so logical, there must arise a strong suspicion, if not an absolute assurance, that it has carried us quite beyond the reach of our faculties, when it leads to conclusions so extraordinary, and so remote from common life and experience.

Type
Part V. Deduction From the Phenomena
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 209 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991

References

Galileo, (1638), Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche intorno à due nuove scienze.. Cited from Galileo Galilei, Two New Science., trans. Drake, S. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1777), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.. Cited from David Hume, The Philosophical Word.. (ed.), Green, T.H. and Grose, T.H., vol. IV. London, 1882 (reprinted Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1967).Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1687), Philosophiae naturalis Principia Mathematica.. Cited from A., Koyré and Cohen, I.B. (eds.), Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, the Third Edition (1726) with Variant Readings.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. (This edition records all significant differences among the first, second, and third editions—of 1687, 1713, and 1726, respectively.) In translating passages from this work, I have been guided by the English translation of Andrew Motte (1729; reprinted London: Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. (1728), De Mundi Systemate.. Cited from the English translation (presumably by Motte, revised by Cajori) in Cajori, F. (ed.), Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World.. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1946.Google Scholar