Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T02:59:16.732Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstruction of the Optical Revolution: Lakatos vs. Laudan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Xiang Chen
Xiang Chen*
Affiliation:
Zhongshan University, People’s Republic of China
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The optical revolution, that is, the replacement of corpuscular optics by wave optics at the beginning of the nineteenth century, has attracted the attention of philosophers of science for a long time. For a long period the cause of the optical revolution was attributed to “crucial experiments” such as Foucault’s experiment on the velocity of light (Sabra 1954, pp.149-51). Later Frankel argued that social and political factors were necessary for the victory of the wave theory (Frankel 1976, p.142). These accounts, however, were severely criticized by recent theorists of scientific change, especially Lakatos and Laudan. Lakatos calls the opinion that accounted for the optical revolution solely by “crucial experiments” naive “instant rationality” (Lakatos 1978, p.68 & 72n). Laudan also regards the attempt to explain scientific revolution mainly by social and political elements as “jumping to a premature conclusion” (Laudan 1977, p.4).

Type
Part IV. History of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 102 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

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

1

Earlier version of this paper was a term paper for the class of Professor Peter Barker. I am grateful to Barker for his criticism and encouragement

References

Brewster, D. (1832). “Report on the Recent Progress of Optics.” Report on the British Association for the Advancement of Science 2: 308–22.Google Scholar
Brewster, D. (1833). “Observation on the Absorption of Specific Rays, in Reference to the Undulatory Theory of Light.” Philosophical Magazine 2: 360–3.Google Scholar
Cantor, G. (1983). Optics after Newton. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (1974). “The Rise and Fall of Laplacian Physics.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 4: 89–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, E. (1976). “Corpuscular Optics and the Wave Theory of Light: The Science and Politics of a Revolution in Physics.” Social Studies of Science 6: 141–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fresnel, (1829). “Elementary View of the Undulatory Theory of Light.” Quarterly Journal of Science 27: 159–65.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. (1833). “On the Effect of Absorption in Prismatic Interference.” Philosophical Magazine 2: 191–4.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, , (1834). “Report on the Progress and Present State of Physical Optics.” Report on the British Association for the Advancement of Science 4: 295–413.Google Scholar
Potter, P. (1833). “On the Modification of the Interference of Two Pencils of Homogeneous Light Produced by Causing Them to Pass through A Prism of Glass, and on the Importance of the Phaenomena Which Then Take Place in Determining the Velocity with Which Light Traverses Refracting Substances.” Philosophical Magazine 2: 81–94.Google Scholar
Sabra, A. (1954). “A Note on a Suggested Modification of Newton’s Corpuscular Theory of Light to Reconcile It with Foucault’s Experiment of 1850.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5: 145–51.10.1093/bjps/V.18.149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silliman, R. (1974). “Fresnel and the Emergence of Physics as a Discipline.” Historical Studies in the Physical Science 4: 137–62.10.2307/27757329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffens, H. (1977). The Development of Newtonian Optics in England. N.Y.: Science History Publication.Google Scholar
Whewell, W. (1857). History of the Inductive Sciences. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1976). “Thomas Young and the ‘Refutation’ of Newtonian Optics: A Casestudy in the Interaction of Philosophy of Science and History of Science.” In Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences. Edited by Howson, C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, , (1804). “Experiments and Calculations Relative to Physical Optics.” In Miscellaneous Works of the late Thomas Young. Edited by Peacock, G. London: John Murray, pp. 179–191.Google Scholar
Young, , (1809). “Review of Laplace’s Memoir.” Quarterly Review 2: 339.Google Scholar