Mixed mathematics and metaphysical physics: Descartes and the mechanics of the flow of water.

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-12-27 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.12.003
Ovidiu Babeș
{"title":"Mixed mathematics and metaphysical physics: Descartes and the mechanics of the flow of water.","authors":"Ovidiu Babeș","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Descartes' systematic physics had little to do with his quantitative accounts of natural phenomena. The former was metaphysical and was concerned with uncovering the causes operating in nature, while the latter dealt with establishing mathematical relations between various natural quantities. I reconstruct a dominant interpretation in recent literature which argues that the two practices are autonomous, and that quantitative problem-solving is normatively subordinated to metaphysical physics. However, a substantial episode of Descartes' practice resists these claims in an interesting way. Descartes' 1643 explanation of the flow of water should be, on the above reading, autonomous from metaphysically grounded physics or matter theory. Yet the explanation had unifying intentions: It is explicitly based on Descartes' laws of motion and considers the material properties of water. Additionally, because quantitative problem-solving should be subordinated to systematic physics, we would expect that Descartes' explanation is coherent with his physics of liquids. However, if we search for such a coherence, the autonomy between the two practices resurfaces as a problem. Even on a charitable reading, the physical features assumed and modelled in the 1643 explanation cannot be accounted for by Descartes' systematic physics. They are simply underdetermined in his natural philosophy. The outcome is that Descartes' quantitative solution navigated its way around the physical constraints in a creative and opportunistic fashion.</p>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"109 ","pages":"58-71"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.12.003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Descartes' systematic physics had little to do with his quantitative accounts of natural phenomena. The former was metaphysical and was concerned with uncovering the causes operating in nature, while the latter dealt with establishing mathematical relations between various natural quantities. I reconstruct a dominant interpretation in recent literature which argues that the two practices are autonomous, and that quantitative problem-solving is normatively subordinated to metaphysical physics. However, a substantial episode of Descartes' practice resists these claims in an interesting way. Descartes' 1643 explanation of the flow of water should be, on the above reading, autonomous from metaphysically grounded physics or matter theory. Yet the explanation had unifying intentions: It is explicitly based on Descartes' laws of motion and considers the material properties of water. Additionally, because quantitative problem-solving should be subordinated to systematic physics, we would expect that Descartes' explanation is coherent with his physics of liquids. However, if we search for such a coherence, the autonomy between the two practices resurfaces as a problem. Even on a charitable reading, the physical features assumed and modelled in the 1643 explanation cannot be accounted for by Descartes' systematic physics. They are simply underdetermined in his natural philosophy. The outcome is that Descartes' quantitative solution navigated its way around the physical constraints in a creative and opportunistic fashion.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
混合数学和形而上学物理学:笛卡儿和水的流动力学。
笛卡尔的系统物理学与他对自然现象的定量描述几乎没有关系。前者是形而上学的,关注于揭示自然界中运行的原因,而后者则处理建立各种自然量之间的数学关系。我在最近的文献中重建了一个占主导地位的解释,该解释认为这两种实践是自主的,定量解决问题在规范上服从于形而上学物理学。然而,笛卡尔实践中的一个重要情节以一种有趣的方式反驳了这些说法。根据上面的阅读,笛卡尔1643年对水流的解释应该是独立于形而上学基础的物理学或物质理论的。然而,这种解释有着统一的意图:它明确地基于笛卡尔的运动定律,并考虑了水的物质特性。此外,由于定量问题的解决应该服从于系统物理学,我们可以预期笛卡尔的解释与他的液体物理学是一致的。然而,如果我们寻找这样一种一致性,两种实践之间的自主性就会作为一个问题重新出现。即使是善意的解读,笛卡尔的系统物理学也无法解释1643年解释中所假设和模拟的物理特征。在他的自然哲学中,它们只是不确定的。结果是,笛卡尔的定量解决方案以一种创造性和机会主义的方式绕过了物理限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
期刊最新文献
On the "direct detection" of gravitational waves. Intellectual inflation: one way for scientific research to degenerate. Measurement, decomposition and level-switching in historical science: Geochronology and the ontology of scientific methods. Believing in organisms: Kant's non-mechanistic philosophy of nature. Rewriting the Quantum "Revolution".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1